Skip to main content

So says Arianna Huffington.

She bumped into him at the brunch preceding Nancy Pelosi's formal swearing in and said he was "steamed" at this article by Arnaud De Borchgrave, UPI Editor at Large......

...de Borchgrave details Bibi Netanyahu leading the charge to lobby the Bush administration to take out Iran's nuclear facilities, and paints U.S. air strikes against Iran in 2007/08 as all-but-a-done deal.

More

Clark doesn't mince words....

"How can you talk about bombing a country when you won't even talk to them?" said Clark. "It's outrageous. We're the United States of America; we don't do that. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the military option is off the table -- but diplomacy is not what Jim Baker says it is. It's not, What will it take for you boys to support us on Iraq? It's sitting down for a couple of days and talking about our families and our hopes, and building relationships."

When we asked him what made him so sure the Bush administration was headed in this direction, he replied: "You just have to read what's in the Israeli press. The Jewish community is divided but there is so much pressure being channeled from the New York money people to the office seekers."

At one point Melinda reminded him that she was taking down everything he said (a fact that would have been hard to miss, since she was taking notes on a not-inconspicuous legal pad). His response: 'Yes, I know." For Clark, this is the biggest foreign policy issue facing the U.S. "I'm worried about the surge," he said. "But I'm worried about this even more."

Now, I don't know about you, but if Wes Clark is worried, I'm worried.

And what worries me more is, it may not just be the Bushites. According to this article, some Democrats may be on board, especially those with strong ties to AIPAC

And if Bush doesn't take on Iran, prominent Israelis are speculating that president Clinton 2 (Hillary) will do so.

and John Edwards has been rattling sabers when it comes to Iran.

Now, I'm sure that Clark is burning up the phone lines as we speak, but the question is, will they listen now they are in power. I'm not so sure they will. When big money enters into the equation in Washington, all bets are off.

We need to call our representatives!

We need to tell them .....STOP THAT ASSHOLE FROM GETTING US INTO ANOTHER DAMN WAR

Originally posted to pelican on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 06:57 PM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  You're eliminating politicians with ties to AIPAC (12+ / 0-)

    in consideration for president? I'm not exactly sure what "ties to AIPAC" means, since I've looked through the Federal Election Commission reports both at the FEC site and at Open Secrets, and I couldn't find a single campaign donation given by any organization called AIPAC to anybody.

    Join the College Kossacks on Facebook, or the Republicans win.

    by DemocraticLuntz on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 06:56:11 PM PST

    •  I have a feeling (37+ / 0-)

      that they have their membership contribute as individuals.  I'm not really up on them but I have heard someone on a talk show state that aipac should be forced to register as an agent for a foreign govt.

      •  Oh, wow. (7+ / 0-)

        That's remarkably concrete and detailed information.  Thanks for sharing.

      •  Well. . . (5+ / 0-)

        but I have heard someone on a talk show state that aipac should be forced to register as an agent for a foreign govt

        that settles it then!  Someone.  On a, you know, talk show.

        Actually, better than registering, two AIPAC staffers were arrested as agents of a foreign government.  So there you go!

        (Seriously, aside from the talk show "someone", it's possible there's a reasonable case to be made for AIPAC being treated as a foreign representative, depending on the actual, rather than imagined, degree to which they coordinate with and represent a foreign government).

        Don't blame me -- I voted for Weicker.

        by LarryInNYC on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 08:39:59 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Hmm (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Dvd Avins, walkshills, Steve M, Compound F

          I do not like that tell truth.

          AIPAC is Americans. They present their views, not the Israeli government's.

          I do not know for sure, but something tells me they were not on board with Barak's peace plan that Arafat rejected.

          But what do you make of this bombing Iran business?

          •  AIPAC is the American voice for the Israeli Right (38+ / 0-)

            The occupation of Iraq is being prolonged indefinitely to save face for Duhbya and his crew of NeoCon nitwits.

            by Lefty Coaster on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 08:52:16 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  I think the diary (5+ / 0-)

            and Clark are extremely unclear.

            I differentiate between these two positions:

            1. It's a genuinely bad thing for Iran to get the bomb -- proliferation is bad, Iran is at the worst end of bad.
            1. Bomb them.

            I'm pretty sure that there's a lot of pressure in favor of position 1.  How much of that actually amounts to supporting position 2 I don't know.

            The problem is this: For this kind of diplomacy it is important for the other guy to know that you're willing, ultimately, to go to the wall.  Even Clark says as much in the quote in this diary.  That's how Clinton forced Preval out of Port au Prince, for instance.  

            Unfortunately, with crazy George in the White House and Cheney as his triggerman experience shows us that they cannot be trusted to use that kind of leverage wisely.

            I also think Clark is wrong (if I understand him correctly) in stating that Baker's idea of talking is not talking.  Of course, I'm actually something of a fan of Baker's foreign policy history and expertise (which makes me, I imagine, a minority of one around here), but I think when Baker says "talk" he means "talk" and not ultimatum -- at least, until it's ultimatum time.  Would he pass around pictures of the kids, as Clark suggests?  I doubt it.  Would he get the problem solved?  I think he has as much chance as anyone.

            In summary -- I'm not sure that there's so much pressure to actually bomb Iran as Clark suggests, just pressure not to publicly disavow military action in extremis, which I believe is also Clark's position.  I think either Baker or Clark would pursue a reasonable strategy towards Iran.

            Finally, I intensely dislike the euphemism "New York money people" for "Jews" and think ill of people who use it.

            Don't blame me -- I voted for Weicker.

            by LarryInNYC on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 09:00:48 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  this sounds about right: (8+ / 0-)

            A few days of Israeli bombing may or may not retard the Iranian nuclear program, but it would impede any plan by the realists to engage Iran in an effort to stabilize Iraq, start withdrawing U.S. troops, and change the direction of American policy in the Middle East.

            http://www.amconmag.com/...

            We don't have time for short-term thinking.

            by Compound F on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 10:00:42 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  What do we really know about Iran's nuclear (3+ / 0-)

              program?

              I saw this posted some time back here on Kos. It looks believable to me.

              Their U-235 enrichment program was able, earlier this year, to produce fissile material that was 3.5% U-235. To produce this ratio of U-235, they used approximately 180 cascading centrifuges (which is all they have). In order to utilize Uranium for the production of a nuclear weapon, the Uranium in question MUST be, at an absolute minimum, 80% U-235. This process requires a minimum of 16,000 cascading centrifuges. In other words, Iran can currently enrich Uranium that's, GASP, strong enough to irradiate a watch dial. They are minimum 7-10 years away from even thinking about producing the kind of fissile material that could be used for weapons applications. What's even crazier is that Mohammed al Baradei (head of the IAEA and winner of the Nobel Prize) has said that the IAEA does not now nor have they had ANY evidence leading them to believe that Iran's nuclear ambitions are for anything other than conventional means. Now, let's face it, Ahmadinajad is a bit off and he talks a good game but the mullahs who really run things there aren't stupid. A US attack of Iran, on the other hand, would be one of the monumentally stupid ideas in the history of stupid ideas and saying that about this bunch with a straight face pains me (and scares the shit out of me!).
              "There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action." Johann Von Goethe

              by green917 on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 01:53:09 PM PDT

              Let's don't let ourselves be fooled again by all of the BS put forward by the neocons and the US MSM. They have an agenda and will do anything to keep it on track.

              We cannot, and the world cannot, afford to let them get away with this.

            •  What do the Likudniks really want? (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              pb, miriam, just another vet

              Has anyone considered that Netanyahu and the Israeli Right are trying to push Bush to attack Iran simply in order to administer the coup de grace to the Palestinian "peace process"?

              Airstrikes on Iran are not going to eliminate Iran's nuclear program and probably won't even significantly slow it. Nearly everyone knows this and I'll bet Netanyahu recognizes it too. He doesn't expect the US to eliminate the Iranian threat. But he wants to incite the Americans to attack Iran so Israel will be freer to "resolve" the Palestinian question on its own terms, without US or Saudi interference.

              If the US attacks Iran there goes any last chance of the US diplomatically engaging Iran.  Shiite resistance to the US occupation in Iraq will dramatically escalate. US resources will be so overextended in Iraq the US won't have the military or diplomatic power to contemplate any new moves in any other part of the Middle East. The mess in Iraq thus far has already worked to stifle whatever interest the Administration once had in negotiating the "roadmap to Israeli-Plaestinian peace." A bigger mess in Iraq will guarantee the US remains paralyzed for the next several years and too discredited in Arab eyes to be able to exert any influence on the Palestinians. It will end once and for all the notion that the US can use its power to pressure Israelis or Palestinians to sit down at the negotiating table.

              Mounting Sunni-Shiite violence in Iraq and a US-Iranian shooting war will also tie the hands of the Saudis, keeping them far too preoccupied with protecting Sunni interests in Iraq and rolling back the "Persian threat" to exert any pressure upon Israel on the matters of Palestine and Lebanon.

              With the US and the Saudis enmired in Persian Gulf war Israel will be free to resolve its security problems entirely on its own terms. It can draw the lines for the Palestinian bantustans wherever it wants. It can build as much wall as it wants. It can establish new settlements wherever it wants. It can annex southern lebanon if it chooses to do so. It can assassinate as many Palestinian leaders as it thinks necessary to guarantee there'll be no Palestinian to negotiate with.

              In other words the Bush Administration is about to be suckered again. And a lot more innocent people are going to be sacrificed.  

          •  AIPAC is the agent of a foreign entity (7+ / 0-)

            and should be required to register as such.  That entity is not necessarily the Israeli government.

            I never craved a toaster or a color TV

            by Paper Cup on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 10:30:38 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  And Israelis. There's that dual citizenship thing (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            npbeachfun, elliott, howardx

            and their promotion of ties between our military and Israeli defense. Their big push now is for missile defense dollars.

            Dear Mr. Congress Person, kiss my ass or I will use the Line Item Veto to hurt you.

            by mattes on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 10:56:49 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  People who are "up" on them say they conduct many (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Hornito, mattes, ShaShaMae

        of their transgressions in secretive ways

        so even though the talk show guest has little credibility by the fact of being a talk show source, sounds like he or she may be as accurate as those with more knowledge on AIPAC and how it operates.

        •  Paul Findley he has several books: (7+ / 0-)

          http://en.wikipedia.org/...

          In 1989, Findley wrote the best selling book "They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby" in which he claims that the pro-Israel lobby, notably AIPAC, has vast undue influence over the United States Congress. He refers to the lobby as "the 700-pound gorilla in Washington".[1] The Washington Post said "former congressman Paul Findley's message is straightforward and valid: Israeli influence in the United States, including in the inner sanctums of government, is very strong." [2] The New York Times described the book as "an angry, one-sided book that seems often to be little more than a stringing together of stray incidents". [3]

          A year after the September 11 attack, Findley published an article saying that this attack would never have occurred were it not for uncritical U.S. support of Israel. [4] In that same article, he wrote that "U.S. policy on the Mideast is made in Israel, not in Washington," and that "once beloved worldwide, the U.S. government finds itself reviled in most countries because it provides unconditional support of Israeli violations of the United Nations Charter, international law, and the precepts of all major religious faiths."

          Findley blames the Israeli lobby for contributing to his defeat in 1982 : "But, in seeking gains for Israel, they rigorously stifled dissent and intimidated the entire Congress. They still do. They defeat legislators who criticize Israel. Senators Adlai Stevenson and Charles Percy, and Reps. Pete McCloskey, Cynthia McKinney, Earl F. Hilliard, and myself were defeated at the polls by candidates heavily financed by pro-Israel forces. McKinney alone was able to regain her seat in Congress."[5]

          Dear Mr. Congress Person, kiss my ass or I will use the Line Item Veto to hurt you.

          by mattes on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 10:52:15 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  doesn't Paul Findley have an axe to grind? (0+ / 0-)

            since he blames AIPAC for engineering his political defeat

            •  And why did they oppose him? (0+ / 0-)

              Answer: Because he's been saying much the same thing for a long time.

              So it's hardly reasonable to suggest that he's saying it now because they opposed him.

              "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security." -Ben Franklin

              by leevank on Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 07:45:53 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  you bet (0+ / 0-)

              since he blames AIPAC for engineering his political defeat

              Falsely.  Findley was done in by the 1982 recession and a cataclysmic redistricting.  (It was the district I grew up in, and Findley was my congresscritter for fifteen years.)  But he decided he'd have a better chance selling a "I Am A Casualty of Zionism" book than one called "I Was Just Another Shlub Redistricted Out of Office."

              •  OK, so what you're saying is (0+ / 0-)

                there was no AIPAC money backing his opponent or running ads against him?

                I don't know the details.

                We at Daily Kos must demand more of our country and of our representatives.

                by Pescadero Bill on Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 09:12:07 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  the details (0+ / 0-)

                  Two days after the election, Findley told the local paper -- the State Journal-Register in Springfield -- that redistricting was the insurmountable obstacle that cost him the seat.

                  The redistricting was the result of the 1980 census, and shifted Findley's district dramatically, so that almost half of it was new to him.

                  Worse, the parts that he picked up included some blue collar areas which, thanks to the 1982 recession, were at record unemployment levels.  

                  Worse, Ronald Reagan had personally intervened to make unemployment in the area worse.  The big manufacturer around here is Caterpillar in Peoria, and although Peoria wasn't part of the newly redrawn district, when Caterpillar is hurting, most of the surrounding counties are hurting too.  Reagan, however, had ordered an embargo of sales of heavy equipment to the Soviet Union, taking away one of Cat's big-big-dollar customers, and taking away more jobs.

                  So, Findley was fighting not just a national recession being blamed on his party, not just a cataclysmic redistricting that removed half the advantage of being an incumbent, but also record unemployment linked in many local minds straight to the White House.  Dozens of Republican House seats swung Democratic that year.  Findley's was just one of them.

                  Two years before, in 1980, somebody had run against Findley using the Mideast as his central issue and getting donations from national Jewish organizations.  Know what? He got creamed.  The Israel/Palestine issue isn't even a blip on the radar.  There might be as many as five thousand Jews in the entire congressional district.

                  Was there pro-Israel money going to his 1982 opponent -- who was, I'm proud to say, Dick Durbin, our local-boy-made-good?  Yep.  But the 1980 race proved that that alone wasn't nearly enough to make a difference.  

                  So going around saying "AIPAC defeated Findley in 1982" is a little like saying "The Irish won WWII."  It's a very partial truth.

                  But there are plenty of people out there who are happy to grab the "The Zionists did in Findley" meme without knowing the whole story, and Findley's post-defeat career has depended on his ability to convince people that he's a martyr to something more exciting than redistricting.

                  But you should know that even Findley himself says that redistricting is what did him in -- or at least he used to, before he found martyrdom more lucrative.

                  •  and I may as well add (0+ / 0-)

                    The reason that I engaged the public I/P debate in the first place is that I got sick of the bizarre revisionist history Findley promulgated and that ardently anti-Israel activists accepted no-questions-asked.  

                    I should also note that Paul Findley is widely regarded in his former district as having gone off the deep-end.  He used to have a column in the Jacksonville paper, in which he served up his biweekly anti-Israel rant, moving ever-closer to the border of antisemitic rhetoric, and lost the column when he crossed the line.  I remember one of his last columns blamed the Zionists for ruining the career of Spiro Agnew, I shit thee not.

                    Findley was one of the first public leaders to recognize that there was more to the Palestinians than shooting Israeli athletes and blowing up planes.  Unfortunately, he ended up undoing that fine work, and is now only a hero to those who don't know him.

      •  Israel- Exception to Rule (0+ / 0-)

        Every Lobbies working on behalf of Foreign Government has to Register as an agent for a Foreign Government-

        Israel is the only county Except

        Why?

        "If you only watch the cheerleaders, you will think your team is winning" me -6.88, -6.26

        by npbeachfun on Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 12:11:26 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I agree (0+ / 0-)

        they are a foreign agent; make them register as such.  Every other foreign interest has to, as far as I know.

        It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it - Aristotle

        by gatorcog on Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 07:27:28 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Do you deny AIPAC's influence in Congress (38+ / 0-)

      and the White House?  That's what your statement implies.

      "No man should have to clean up after another man's dog." --President Gerald R. Ford

      by Mogolori on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 07:08:36 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Does AIPAC even exist? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        yoduuuh do or do not

        What kind of a PAC doesn't give money to people?

        Join the College Kossacks on Facebook, or the Republicans win.

        by DemocraticLuntz on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 07:10:12 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Their influence is overrated. (12+ / 0-)

        They're influential in large part because (like it or not) their chief mission, unswerving support of Israel by the United States, is supported by the vast majority of Americans.

        Two of their reps were arrested by the Bush Administration for spying when they received classified information.  Hardly the all powerful secret pullers-of-strings many would have us believe.

        Although they're a real organization I think for a lot of people AIPAC also stands in for other discredited conspiracy groups such as the Trilateral Commission or the Elders of Zion.  In fact they're a lobbying organization and one of the few that actually have the support of a majority of the population.

        Other than their public lobbying, what control do you believe they exercise?

        Don't blame me -- I voted for Weicker.

        by LarryInNYC on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 07:14:54 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Wait A Second (34+ / 0-)

          In fact they're a lobbying organization and one of the few that actually have the support of a majority of the population.

          Does AIPAC have the support of the majority of the population?

          Or does a generic "do you support Israel?" question get "yes" answers from a majority in polls?

        •  people (18+ / 0-)

          people support Israel because they are told to. I still have not heard a good reason for us to support Israel above and beyond any other democracy. I fail to see their strategic importance in military or finacial US self interest.

          mr republican, is that a flag in your pocket or are you just glad to see my son?

          by pissedpatriot on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 07:17:42 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The fact that _you_ (6+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Upper West, Adam B, vcmvo2, Geekesque, Karyn, GoldnI

            personally don't support the continued existence of Israel is not prima facie evidence that other people only do so because "they're told to".

            I'm sure people have a wide variety of reasons to support Israel, but I think you have to be nuts not to understand that there is a very wide and very deep antipathy towards Islamic countries in the United States.  That antipathy leads to an "enemy of my enemy is my friend" support of Israel as well as ridiculous policies like the Iraq war.

            Don't blame me -- I voted for Weicker.

            by LarryInNYC on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 07:20:53 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  huh? (29+ / 0-)

              huh? I never said I don't support the existence of Israel, nice strawman.  I just don't see how it is of any self interest to that of the US, either militarily or economically.

              I am still waiting for these wide variety of economically/military reasons why Israel is of any importance to the US.

              mr republican, is that a flag in your pocket or are you just glad to see my son?

              by pissedpatriot on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 07:25:46 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I find it hard to reconile. . . (0+ / 0-)

                I never said I don't support the existence of Israel,

                with

                I just don't see how it is of any self interest to that of the US, either militarily or economically.

                Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the second part of the statement, which seems to indicate that failing some absent economic or military reasons the US should not support Israel.

                Don't blame me -- I voted for Weicker.

                by LarryInNYC on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 07:33:04 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  do you (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Eiron, bigchin, howardx

                  do you even get what US foreign policy is all about?

                  mr republican, is that a flag in your pocket or are you just glad to see my son?

                  by pissedpatriot on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 07:39:29 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Is it your contention (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  tmo, callmecassandra, Lena

                  that without American support Israel would not exist?

                  "Whoever lives for the sake of combating an enemy has an interest in the enemy's staying alive." Friedrich Nietzsche

                  by witchamakallit on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 07:39:57 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Yes (0+ / 0-)

                    Without a shred of doubt in the Yom Kippor war. If the US had not rushed war material to Israel, Israel would not exist today.

                    If the US had not provided aid over the years Israel would not have been in a militarily superior position in '67.

                    While I'm penning a (late to the party I admit) comment, I'll toss in that folks might want to check the stats on the number of patents held by and applied for (on an annual basis) by Israelis when considering the strategic value of supporting Israel.

                    Democracy is a contact sport...

                    by jsmagid on Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 09:07:31 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  And your point is? (0+ / 0-)

                      While I'm penning a (late to the party I admit) comment, I'll toss in that folks might want to check the stats on the number of patents held by and applied for (on an annual basis) by Israelis when considering the strategic value of supporting Israel.

                      The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world She didn't exist.

                      by callmecassandra on Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 10:26:46 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  There are reasons beyond (0+ / 0-)

                        the usual "only Democracy in the Middle East" for supporting Israel. There is a tremendous amount of innovation occuring in Israel that is of great economic value to all of us, far more than all of the rest of the Middle East, and probably Africa as well. Should Israel go down the tubes, much of that innovation would be lost.

                        Democracy is a contact sport...

                        by jsmagid on Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 10:34:55 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  And what are these innovations, (0+ / 0-)

                          that will destroy the U.S. if Israel "goes down"?

                          The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world She didn't exist.

                          by callmecassandra on Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 10:48:24 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Who said destroy the US? (0+ / 0-)

                            Disagree if you like, but do not put words in my mouth.

                            Israel produces a huge number of technological innovations each year that are of strategic import to the US.

                            Ever heard of CheckPoint Systems (firewalls)? Israeli company (disclosure, my 2nd cousin and her husband are high-level employees).

                            From an Amazon.com review of the book "Israel in the World: Changing Lives Through Innovation":

                            This attractively illustrated book provides a showcase of Israel's achievements in fields as diverse as agriculture, education, medicine, science and technology. It looks at the technologies, processes and the products from this tiny little land that are improving the lives of so many people. The authors highlight some of the people responsible for this ingenuity that is benefiting the whole world.

                            For example, at the Weizmann Institute, Dr Michal Schwartz has developed a way of harnessing immune system cells to repair and revive damaged nerve fibres. Other medical breakthroughs include the miniscule camera-in-a-tablet used for internal diagnosis, ultrasound for destroying tumours and Israel's highly effective disaster relief operations.

                            A great help to third world people has been the discovery by scientist Yoel Margalith of the Bti bacterium that kills certain kinds of flies and harmful mosquitoes. This has already saved millions of livers and is an environment-friendly intervention. Most remarkable is that Margalith is a holocaust survivor, of both the Bergen-Belsen and Teresienstadt camps.

                            In many fields Israel is so far ahead of the pack that other countries have no chance of catching up. One of the most interesting innovations developed in Israel is a project to avoid collisions between aircraft and migratory birds. It involved the study of the flight paths of birds. This work of researcher Yossi Leshem is now also used by the Jordanian and Turkish air-force.

                            Israel has more engineers per capita than any other country on earth and a remarkable number of hi-tech companies. Innovation in the fields of computers and information technology is particularly impressive. This encompasses software, operating systems, storage & retrieval systems, verification and firewall technologies, plus a host of mobile phone applications.

                            Israel's creativity is not restricted to science and technology, as there is also much happening in arts and culture. Despite its small size and its many enemies, this country is bursting with creative energy and making a huge contribution to the global marketplace and to quality of life worldwide.

                            Democracy is a contact sport...

                            by jsmagid on Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 11:02:33 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Hmmm.... (0+ / 0-)

                            Disagree if you like, but do not put words in my mouth.

                            Then what's your point? Obviously these innovations aren't life and death to the continued survival and power of the U.S. as in, if we didn't have them, the U.S. would be destroyed.

                            But what does any of this have to do with strategic value of Israel to the U.S.?

                            The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world She didn't exist.

                            by callmecassandra on Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 11:26:11 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Your definition of strategic (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            callmecassandra

                            seems to be vastly different from mine.

                            Strategy as I understand it (and I do have professional experience in this area) involves establishing long-term goals, determining what it will take to achieve them and figuring out how to get that done. Survival and maintaing the "power" of the US, IMO, are hardly the only goals under consideration.

                            The health and welfare of our citizens, in fact for much of the world - a great way to minimize political instability, is of strategic concern. Israel clearly has much to contribute to the successful attainment of this goal.

                            The ability to maintain a secure computing infrastructure is sort of important and again, Israeli innovation is much to our benefit in achieving this goal.

                            I'm sure I could go on and on - except that would be at odds with my personal goal to stay in good stead with my boss and get some work done....

                            Meanwhile I'll flip it for you, what would be the strategic benefit of the destruction of Israel by the likes of Hezbullah and Hamas? (Not that Bush & Co. or even recent Israeli governments have any clue as to how to deal effectively with these terrorist organizations.)

                            Democracy is a contact sport...

                            by jsmagid on Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 11:36:38 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  So do a other nations... (0+ / 0-)

                            Israel clearly has much to contribute

                            Not a good enough reason to give unconditional support to any of them, including Israel.

                            Meanwhile I'll flip it for you, what would be the strategic benefit of the destruction of Israel by the likes of Hezbullah and Hamas? (Not that Bush & Co. or even recent Israeli governments have any clue as to how to deal effectively with these terrorist organizations.)

                            Has nothing to do with this specific discussion. I wanted to know why you believe Israel is of such strategic importance to the U.S. You've responded. I don't fully agree with your pov.

                            The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world She didn't exist.

                            by callmecassandra on Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 11:51:52 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  There you go again (0+ / 0-)

                            Who said unconditional support?

                            If I didn't say explicitly, I certainly meant to imply support sufficient to ensure Israel's survival (the question at issue up thread).

                            I can't think of any other country (ethnic regions within countries excepted) in the world who's existence is explicitly threatened besides Israel - well perhaps with the developing exception of the debacle Bush has created in Iraq - and few countries come close to providing the strategic benefits that Israel does.

                            The case for a base level of support for Israel is therefore extremely strong and - to dovetail with another thread of this diary - reflects the sentiment of the majority of Americans.

                            Democracy is a contact sport...

                            by jsmagid on Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 12:05:45 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The support we give to Israel is unconditional. (0+ / 0-)

                            There you go again. Who said unconditional support?

                            There is no other way to describe it and nor did I intend to suggest that you believe Israel should receive this unconditional support. I should have made that clear.

                            What I'm trying to understand is Israel's strategic value to the U.S. which has yet to be explained sufficiently by anyone, including you, to justify the support we currently provide.

                            Innovations? That's it?

                            The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world She didn't exist.

                            by callmecassandra on Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 12:14:53 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  How about it's the right thing to do. (0+ / 0-)

                            We're America, we support Democracies under attack by dictatorships mired in the 13th century.

                            Hell, we support dictatorships (who give aid and comfort to our enemies) unconditionally (can you say Pakistan), why not a democracy or 2 who could use some help... .

                            Democracy is a contact sport...

                            by jsmagid on Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 01:09:00 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  For you, it may be the "right" thing to do. (0+ / 0-)

                            But not to the men (generic) who sit in power.

                            Hell, we support dictatorships (who give aid and comfort to our enemies) unconditionally (can you say Pakistan), why not a democracy or 2 who could use some help...

                            So we're helping Israel out of penance? Making up for all our wrongs in supporting other countries with deplorable governments? We're doing this out of the goodness of our hearts? You say you work in strategy, so surely you're not this naive.

                            Our support is not humanitarian, altruistic or penance. It's cynical. It's self-interested. No country gives this amount of aid and support without getting something in return, something beneficial to that nation's (the U.S.) interests or to greedy politicians and corporatists. And the cost in blood does not slow them one bit as long as it's not theirs.

                            And we'll continue to support Israel unconditionally until Israel is of no more use to the U.S. (Unless Israel wises up first.) "Innovation" is hardly worth the effort.

                            The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world She didn't exist.

                            by callmecassandra on Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 01:46:01 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I was thinking of what we used to stand for (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            callmecassandra

                            like when JFK was in office, not how the current corrupt regime operates (not that JFK didn't know how to run ice through his veins and do what was necessary).

                            And of course it was not intended as a substantial defense of support for Israel to be argued point-by-point. None-the-less, it is true. It is the right thing to do for America having failed to provide a safe haven for victims of the Shoah and of course for Europe for similar reasons as well. (And no, I don't want to start a long argument over the suffering of the Palestinians and who should be looking out for them.)

                            As for your more cynical perspective, so long as the Middle East is comprised primarily of potentially unstable non-democratic states mired in the 13th century, it is without question in our interest to maintain a solid foothold that is very significantly beholden to us. As many problems as Israel causes politically for our oil-addicted ways, it is still a key military ally, not to mention the $ flowing to weapons manufacturing to build all the stuff we lend Israel $ to buy - gotta keep all those Lockheed Martin and Boeing people working.

                            Democracy is a contact sport...

                            by jsmagid on Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 02:09:54 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Nope. (0+ / 0-)

                            It is the right thing to do for America having failed to provide a safe haven for victims of the Shoah and of course for Europe for similar reasons as well.

                            There are limits. There needs to be conditions. Israel receiving support is one thing. Israel recieving unconditional support while committing crimes against humanity is another. No one and no people deserve this kind of blank check. And it's kind of f'cked up how the U.S. doesn't do as much for Native Americans today although the U.S. actually did slaughter them. They, Native Americans, are most definately owed...

                            As for your more cynical perspective, so long as the Middle East is comprised primarily of potentially unstable non-democratic states mired in the 13th century, it is without question in our interest to maintain a solid foothold that is very significantly beholden to us.

                            As long as there is a drop of oil in the ME and Europe, China and Russia continue to nip at our heels, we will continue to do the dirty shit that we do. We'd set the ME aflame if it benefited us to do so. We don't care about those people. We don't care that they suffer despotic governments. We don't care that we're part of the problem in the region. We don't care about their peace or helping them to win it. Our interests are not altruistic.

                            The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world She didn't exist.

                            by callmecassandra on Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 02:36:54 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  man (0+ / 0-)

                        man, they patent stuff, so they are important, oh my god, that has to be the weakest arguement I have ever heard.

                        mr republican, is that a flag in your pocket or are you just glad to see my son?

                        by pissedpatriot on Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 12:51:08 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

            •  No. That's a-historical. (16+ / 0-)
              American support for Israel long pre-dates any "very wide and very deep antipathy towards Islamic countries in the United States."

              Until the 70s OPEC oil crisis, and then the Iranian hostage crisis, most Americans didn't think at all about the other countries in the Middle East. And in the decades that followed, if they did ever vaguely think about them, they thought of them as Arab, not Islamic. This hard-on hatred for any country whose citizens mostly follow Islam is a recent phenomenon, whipped up by hate-radio as a substitute focus for fear and fury after Communism went away. (I'm sure you've noted that Bush doesn't share the feeling at all, though he seems to be quite okay with it as emotional fodder for the hoi-polloi.)

              But there has been strong "support for Israel" in the US since the 50s and 60s. Anti-Nazi feeling was so strong right after the war that expressing the smallest doubt about Israel was entirely unacceptable.

              Before WWII there'd been lots of overt anti-Semitism in the US, and nobody seemed to mind. Afterwards, it was considered beyond the pale.

              Folly is fractal: the closer you look at it, the more of it there is. - TNH

              by Canadian Reader on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 07:47:50 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  That's actually not correct. . . (5+ / 0-)

                But there has been strong "support for Israel" in the US since the 50s and 60s.

                There was a very substantial boost in support for Israel (from a minority of the population to the majority) after the 1967 war.

                Don't blame me -- I voted for Weicker.

                by LarryInNYC on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 07:53:38 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  And it was boosted further (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  IhateBush, joesig

                  after the 72 Olympic killings.

                  As for me, and this won't be a popular opinion around here, I support Israel because they're the only people in their region that isn't stuck in the 13th century. Of course, they're stuck in the early 20th, but that's still an improvement.

                  "I'm not a musician. I'm a rock and roll guitar player."--Little Steven Van Zandt

                  by ChurchofBruce on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 08:36:49 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  It is sad that it is so (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Lying eyes, jhritz

                    As for me, and this won't be a popular opinion around here, I support Israel because they're the only people in their region that isn't stuck in the 13th century. Of course, they're stuck in the early 20th, but that's still an improvement.

                    I avoid the Israel threads for the most part, for this reason.  And my support for Israel is for the reason you gave.

                    But unfortunately there are too many here who think Israel is never right, and find any possible reason to criticize Israel.

                    I'm rather disappointed with Kossacks who think that it is fine and dandy if Iran gets nuclear weapons.  That is not an acceptable position in my mind.  
                    I am also diappointed that progressives who correctly condemn Christian fundamentalists as we should do not hold the Islamic fundamentalists with the equal sort of disdain.
                    Israel is not always right, but Israel is much much more humane than are these Islamic theocratic terrorists, who restrict people's lives, and treat women like shit.  I would much rather live in Israel than in Iran or Saudi Arabia,

                    •  We must read different threads (15+ / 0-)

                      I don't see people saying

                      Israel is never right, and find any possible reason to criticize Israel.

                      I do see them criticize Israel for the same sort of things they criticize the US for. It is an anti-violence thing, not an anti-Israel or anti-US thing.
                      Opinions differ on when bombs are called for but if we don't like our bombing it is no surprise we don't like theirs.

                      Nor have I seen people say

                      it is fine and dandy if Iran gets nuclear weapons.

                      There is debate on how who can have a bomb is determined, some have a sense that if they were Iran they'd want the bomb and so on. but no one seems blithe about the idea of them having the bomb.

                      I'm not even sure what this means

                      who correctly condemn Christian fundamentalists as we should do not hold the Islamic fundamentalists with the equal sort of disdain.

                      Have people supported and defended Islamic fundamentalists? Of course we'd condemn Christian fundamentalists more often and strongly because they are "ours", they are here, they affect our life, our policies. If Islamic fundamentalists were here and the Christian ones in other countries we'd complain more about the Islamic ones.

                      We either read different threads or have different interpretations of what is being said.

                      •  Not exactly (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        IhateBush, TomP

                        I think that most regular DKos posters are fairer than this, but during the Lebanon war last summer there were MANY vehemently anti-Israel comments that went way beyond rejecting and condemning its actions during that war, to rejecting and condemning its very existance.

                        Most of these comments were by people I'd never or rarely come across before and haven't seen much of since, so I suspect that there was quite a bit of astroturfing going on. But it's not entirely accurate to say that there aren't anti-Israel (as opposed to anti-Israeli policies) posters here.

                        For good reason, the GOP often is called "the stupid party." -- Bob Novak

                        by kovie on Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 04:48:59 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

            •  that is disingenious (10+ / 0-)

              for you to conflate what he said:

              I still have not heard a good reason for us to support Israel above and beyond any other democracy.  

              with this nonsense:  

              The fact that you personally don't support the continued existence of Israel

              wtf

              Whoever fights monsters should see to it that he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss gazes back into you. Nietzsche

              by snewp on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 07:56:21 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Important General Comment (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              witchamakallit

              > there is a very wide and very deep antipathy towards Islamic countries in the
              > United States

              And if we don't get over it, they won't get over it towards us either.  This is the key point that needs to be repeated over and over in our national dialogue.  

              The very deep antipathy in this country towards the Islamic world guarantees no other feelings in return, and therefore is itself a serious threat to this country.  If we are doing something that GUARANTEES further antipathy towards us, and consquently further attacks against us, it is in our national security interest to desist that behavior; the American people have already accepted this reasoning on Iraq.

              The logic in your argument has only been deemed truly worthy when a neo-con's head explodes

        •  Don't look behind the curtain! (24+ / 0-)

          We're fools to think that money won't buy influence..... Apparently even to taking this country into another war.

          GOD! this is such deja vu.

          •  Yes - unconditional support for Israel (14+ / 0-)

            is one of Edwards' negatives - and Hillary's and Obama's and...why few candidates have a chance without bowing down to AIPAC and continuing the unending cycle of aggression.

            Not a Victory for our Party -but an Opportunity for our Country. - Pelosi

            by annefrank on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 07:58:30 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I suspect that the false identification (7+ / 0-)

              of Israel's interests with the interests of the United States was a major reason underlying the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq.

              Saddam's SCUDs landing on Tel Aviv during the first Gulf War made quite an impression.

            •  How do you know? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              TomP

              How do you know that Edwards, Clinton and Obama unconditionally support Israel?  Unconditionally?  That's a pretty bold charge.  How do you back it up?

              Tell me how you spend your time and how you spend your money -- I'll tell you what your values are.

              by oldpro on Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 01:19:24 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Their votes (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                cotterperson, greenskeeper, TomP

                Not a Victory for our Party -but an Opportunity for our Country. - Pelosi

                by annefrank on Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 02:45:21 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  So, there was a bill calling for (0+ / 0-)

                  unconditional support for Israel and they voted for it?  I must've missed that one.

                  In interpreting votes of elected officials it is a good idea to never assume.  A vote is what it is...and nothing more, nothing less.  Still, context matters...ie. majorities are forever setting up legislative minorities to take 'bad votes' for propaganda for the next election.  No, I'm not saying that is the case here...I'm just saying, never assume you know what is 'meant' by a vote that doesn't spell out in plain English what you contend it means.

                  Always remember that there are those with an agenda who are more than willing to read into every action, every vote, every remark, more than is there...if it furthers that agenda.  Witness the right-wing's 'interpretations' of all things Democratic.

                  Tell me how you spend your time and how you spend your money -- I'll tell you what your values are.

                  by oldpro on Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 02:44:50 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Four Simple Sentences That Can Take Down AIPAC (6+ / 0-)

              Obama is a better bet than Edwards and Clinton, given his multi-ethnic and multi-faith background; quotes and anecdotal evidence also suggest the other two would be more succeptible to AIPAC manipulation than him, unless I'm missing something here.  What concrete quote or vote is there from Obama that convinces you he's as bad as the others?  Is this the same kind of "pro-Israel" criticism Ned Lamont got from a few people simply because he wasn't going to let his rhetoric be twisted by Lieberman's waiting arms into anti-Semitism?  Anyone intending to go into the public dialogue to change the country's view on the issue has to start with "We have to support our ally Israel" before their criticisms will be listened to; so if our approach is to characterize anyone who utters that sentence to be in AIPAC's pocket, I don't see how we ever progress on this issue.  

              It's quite simple actually:

              1. We have to support our ally Israel
              1. The most vital part of that support is guaranteeing Israel's survival
              1. We can only bring peace and security to Israel if we are seen as evenhanded in the peace process by both sides
              1. To do that, we must treat both sides equally; there is simply no other way to gain the trust needed for peace, that peace necessary for survival, that survival necessary for our alliance with Israel to continue in the future.  

              Rinse and repeat.

              And repeat.

              And repeat.

              The logic of your argument is only truly worthy when a neo-con's head explodes

              •  Other ways to loosen AIPAC's stranglehold (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                mattes, annefrank, lisastar
                1. Point out exactly where Israeli interests diverge from US interests. They do sometimes, just as US and British interests sometimes diverge (Tony Blair learned this the hard way).
                1. Point out Israel is not politically monolithic and Likud does not speak for all Israelis. Likud and other far-right parties may sometimes be working at cross purposes with Israel's real long-term interests, just as right-wing Republicans seem to be doing their damnest to isolate and dsicredit the US.
                1. Keep in mind that AIPAC tends to serve as a mouthpiece for Likudnik far-right elements because many American Jews (and American politicians serving Jewish constituents) tend to excessive alarmism re: threats to Israeli security out of the "guilt of the privileged," knowing that they sit here safely while their compatriots tough it out in encircled Israel. They don't have to worry about their homes being shelled or their sons and daughters having to serve in the IDF so they're going to be all the more insistent on sending their contributions and tax dollars to aid Israel whenever the Likudniks ring the alarm bell.

                It's possible to point these things out while remaining pro-Israel and avoiding Protocols paranoia about some International Jewish conspiracy.

                •  LB, I applaud your points. (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  cwkraus4clark, mattes, annefrank

                  Your last sentence is carefully worded, but I do not agree with what, I think, is the spirit of your conclusion. We seem to be generally referring to  candidates running for national office in this discussion. Anyone in this group, even someone on record as pro-Israel, who used these points for discussion, which was in any way construed as loosening this strangehold, would be eliminated early on from serious contention.

                  I believe most Americans, and I include myself in this group, are genuinely supportive of Israel. But the average voter has no idea of the power of AIPAC, how it represents the far right of the Likud, even what the Likud party is, and how much infuence AIPAC has on US policies. Which is unfortunate since I believe so much of our policy in the Middle East is based on this influence. Unfortunate, too, since we were finally able to unite against damaging right wing policies in America this past November.

                  •  Totally agree (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    lisastar

                    There's a pro-Israel in respect to the right of its existance, and there's a contra Israel in respect to the Israeli righwing-bombings of Palistinian children.
                    And yes, I'm german, born in 1981, if that matters.
                    My grandfather was crippled in Stalingrad, although he never was in accordance with the NSDAP, and my other Grandfather broke his legs so not to have to participate in the war cause he had to feed five children, including my father.
                    I am viciously leftist, I am socialist and pacifist. I don't trust anybody who defends AIPAC. I am glad Sharon is in coma, though he was better at the end than in the 70's when he killed children, y'know?
                    I wished that there was peace in the middle east, but I can't bring myself to stand solely on the Israeli side. There's gotta be some justice towards both sides.
                    Plus, as an atheist, fuck your fucking religions. There ain't no fucking god, so there's no reason to fight, arrrgh!

                    Tipper Gore would like to be a metal whore

                    by cwkraus4clark on Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 01:33:47 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

          •  Who is Bibi Netanyahu to send Americans to war? (13+ / 0-)

            Netanyahu wants to entice the U.S. to take down yet another one of the regional powers opposed to Israeli territorial expansion. He must think since we were deluded into attacking Iraq, we will follow his directions to attack Iran too.

            The occupation of Iraq is being prolonged indefinitely to save face for Duhbya and his crew of NeoCon nitwits.

            by Lefty Coaster on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 08:41:47 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  He's been working sending Americans to war (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mattes

              for at least 10 years. Richard Perle, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser drew up a plan to sell war to the US back in '96. The resulting paper is called "A Clean Break." It includes "text" passages to sell war to the US. A snip:

              While the previous government, and many abroad, may emphasize "land for peace"— which placed Israel in the position of cultural, economic, political, diplomatic, and military retreat — the new government can promote Western values and traditions. Such an approach, which will be well received in the United States, includes "peace for peace," "peace through strength" and self reliance: the balance of power.

        •  How do we know this... (15+ / 0-)

          "They're influential in large part because (like it or not) their chief mission, unswerving support of Israel by the United States, is supported by the vast majority of Americans.", if discussion and debate on the issues is stiffled in the US?

          We saw what happened to president Carter for daring to suggest that Israel, too, has a responsibility to work towards peace, not aparthied.

          •  I suppose. . . (6+ / 0-)

            debate and discussion are "stiffled" in the US in the sense that the issue is discussed every day in forums like this and by people like Wes Clark.

            The fact is turning US public opinion against Israel, or even making it even-handed, is difficult.  That's so for two reasons: the entrenched public opinion in favor of Israel and the seeming determination of the "other side" (by which I mean the Palestinians) to present themselves and their cause in a bad light.

            I'm not trying to say it should or shouldn't be that way -- but it is.

            Don't blame me -- I voted for Weicker.

            by LarryInNYC on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 07:30:35 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I should add, by the way. . . (12+ / 0-)

              that Israel seems to be in a major competition with the Palestinians at the moment to see who can come off looking worse.

              I think the first step to solving the problems over there is to parachute in teams of PR people to both sides of the conflict.

              Don't blame me -- I voted for Weicker.

              by LarryInNYC on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 07:34:17 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  No, it's stiffled (13+ / 0-)

              in the sense that criticism of Israel in news media is verboten.  the online blogs is about the only place you'll find discussion of or criticism of Israel.  And even here it will end in someome pulling the anti semitic card.

            •  Larry, Please Be Real (13+ / 0-)

              You know very well that the "stifling" charge is about the kind of coverage we see on the networks, in the major newspapers, and the weeklies like Time and Newsweek. To suggest that the Mighty Wurlitzer of DailyKos is of equal influence with the mass media is, on a factual level wrong. It's so wrong that it's stupid.

              And you're not stupid.

              •  Thanks (seriously) for the vote of confidence. (14+ / 0-)

                I can't claim to be an expert on network TV coverage since I don't watch TV.  My news sources are largely NPR, the online NY Times, and the New Yorker.

                Since the effect on me of those sources is generally to increase my sympathy for the Palestinians it's hard for me to see them as biased against the Palestinians.  I suppose it's possible you could argue their bias is in not increasing my sympathy even more, or not turning me against Israel as a nation, but I think that's a stretch.

                I'm not a huge believe in the objectivity of reporters (I know too many), but I fail to see how anyone who looks at the same sources I do can fail to be aware of the any of the following:

                • The suffering of the Palestinians.
                • The bungling of the current Israeli government.
                • The presence and expansion of Israeli settlements.
                • The supreme incompetence of the Palestinian government.
                • The seeming inability of either side to hold their fire for more than fifteen minutes.

                Don't blame me -- I voted for Weicker.

                by LarryInNYC on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 08:28:29 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  It's A Lot Like Food (0+ / 0-)

                  It makes good sense to watch what you eat and to stick to the best food you can get. In that sense, of the available options, you've made some sound choices.

                  The problem is that after a while, you don't realize what kind of crap most people are eating.

                  Out on this side of the Hudson, in what is often called "flyover country," USA Today is national and international news, talk radio is mindlessly conservative on a whole range of issues, and Lou Dobbs is a shining example of nuance.

                  The result in terms of opinion formation is very different from what you describe above. Even if you set aside the question of editorial tilt, the news sources you list emphasize factual depth, thoughtful consideration of those facts, and gracious prose, which encourages a qualitatively different mindset than the media most Americans get.

                  It also explains more about your approach to most any issue than any post I've ever seen by you.

                  Characters like me move uneasily between those worlds, and that can have definite downsides in terms of matching the tone to the room....

                •  The US media is not "biased" against Palestinians (5+ / 0-)

                  It's straight up complicit with the occupation.  Sorry.  I lived in England for a while in the 90s.  Only then did I realize how non-engaged the US news is in actual events in the Middle East.  The news we get on the Middle East has about as much to do with journalism as Romper Room.  Think about it:  Thomas Friedman is our national Middle East "expert"--a man who uses words like "tribal" to describe Arab speakers.  

                  For actual news, I'd try The Guardian.  And since it's all the same in the internet tubes, you can read it everyday--even without a TV (but do get a TV, so you can watch Flavor of Love).

                  •  I object to (0+ / 0-)

                    the fetishization of European media.  Sure, England gives us the Guardian and, more to my point, the Independent.  But they also produce the Mirror, the Telegraph, and the Sun.

                    I have also lived in England for a time (in the eighties).  While I was there one of the mainstream newspapers was running a front page competition for the best Frog (anti-French) joke.  My time in England overlapped with a stay by my best friend who was subject to extremely outrageous openly expressed racism.  I like England (and France, for that matter, where I've also lived although as child) but to posit them or their respective media as exemplars of unbiased disinterest is silly.  That's not to defend the broader US media, but fighting bias with more bias isn't the solution.

                    I'm not sure if your comment about the US media being "complicit" in the Palestinian occupation is aimed at the outlets I cited (NPR, NY Times online, and the New Yorker).  If so, the statement is absurd on its face.

                    Don't blame me -- I voted for Weicker.

                    by LarryInNYC on Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 07:24:42 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  never said they were unbiased (0+ / 0-)

                      just better on this issue. The journalism on Israel/Palestine from England is much more in depth, irrespective of what happened in the 80s.   And heavens me I never suggested for a minute that better journalism in Europe meant better people.  

                      Keep in mind that journalistic depth, particularly in England, also includes an annoying brand of 19th Century noblesse oblige towards the "Arab world," but nonetheless--I see it has much more informative than U.S. journalism on the region.

                      What I mean by "complicit" is that U.S. news by and large reports consistent with the views of policy makers who support the occupation.  Not  much different than any other topic in politics.   There are exceptions from time to time, but--as they say--expections prove the rule. This is a deep problem that I doubt will go away any time soon.

                      Again, though, reporting should not be confused with public understanding--and should definitely not be translated verbatim into a reading of social viewpoint. Europe and the U.S. are full of bigots and ignoramuses in equal  proportions.  Howsomever, I generally believe that Americans have more resources and more ease of access in terms of findin all the information they need to build an informed view.  So, I don't claim that bad coverage has a 1-to-1 correlation with uninformed views.  

                      All this means that in a day and age when anyone with a computer can read 50 global newspapers in 15 minutes, we can't blame the press if we're uninformed.  Only ourselves.  But it would still be nice if we had better press coverage over here.

                •  One Word---FOX NEWS (0+ / 0-)

                  Very popular in many places, especially the red ones.

                  "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about the things that matter." Dr. ML King, from a jail cell in Birmingham, Alabama in 1963.

                  by bewert on Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 07:45:16 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

        •  heh :D (10+ / 0-)

          On January 20, 2006, Judge T. S. Ellis III sentenced Lawrence Anthony Franklin to 151 months (almost 13 years) in prison and fined him $10,000.

          And then the two to otherguys:

          In August 2005, former AIPAC policy director Steven Rosen and AIPAC senior Iran analyst Keith Weissman were indicted for illegally conspiring to gather and disclose classified national security information to Israel.

          Policy director? Senior analyst? These are no schoolboys. But maybe Clark will get the same treatment  that was given to Howard Dean. He has been a good boy since..

          But you are on a mission :)

          The list of people giving speeches at AIPAC meetings ..is a powerful list.

          "I have a dream" King Jr.

          "I have a book deal" Perves Musharraf

          by allmost liberal european on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 07:22:54 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes? (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            shpilk, Swordsmith, ubertar

            I'm not sure what you're suggesting.  The fact that two important people were arrested and indicted for spying indicates that AIPAC somehow controls the levers of government?  I mean, if that were true wouldn't they get off?  Would Franklin be in jail if AIPAC really pulled the strings?

            Part of my point is that they're not omnipotent -- just an effective lobbying organization.  Don't you get upset when, for instance, some politician is criticised for meeting with CAIR?  Does it mean CAIR is trying to take over the country?  No, they're lobbying for their cause.

            Don't blame me -- I voted for Weicker.

            by LarryInNYC on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 07:27:10 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Are they registered as a lobbying organization (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              pelican, RAZE

              or do they just pay for junkets (and anything else they can buy)?

            •  Please (12+ / 0-)

              In the very first post you used the good old "Trilateral Commission" and the "Elders of Zion." = if you criticize AIPAC, you are a loonie. Thanks!

              Who said that they control everything? But do you think that Schumer, Pelosi, Dean or Hillary would have the guts to go against them ( you know, support human rights and such, actually doing something when civilians are targeted etc, you get my point)?

              Just try to remember  the names from the letter that Howard Dean received after he called for a balanced approach?

              "I have a dream" King Jr.

              "I have a book deal" Perves Musharraf

              by allmost liberal european on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 07:33:11 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  can you fill me in on (0+ / 0-)

                on the Dean letter you mentioned?

              •  Yes, that's intentional. (8+ / 0-)

                I definitely think that some people who criticize AIPAC are doing so as a stand-in for an international Jewish conspiracy.  Here's a recent comment mentioning the mysterious "something" Israel must have to be able to "control" us.  It received 11 uprates.

                AIPAC is subject to the same level of criticism any lobbying organization is -- the Chamber of Commerce, the American Automobile Association.  But when that criticism crossses over into mysterious theories of control it has become, yes, a little bit loonie.

                I'm a whole-hearted Dean supporter and believe he had it right when he called for the US to be an "honest broker" in the I/P conflict.  The criticism he received was a shame -- and yes, AIPAC as a pro-Israel organization would naturally prefer a US policy that favors Israel (although I believe that's shortsighted of them even from the viewpoint of benefit to Israel, not to mention the Palestinians).

                But that influence was brought to bear not (I believe) because of mysterious "control" mechanisms by which Israel, AIPAC, or the "New York money people" are able to run the country, but because they are able to mobilize existing public opinion.

                Don't blame me -- I voted for Weicker.

                by LarryInNYC on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 07:47:25 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Well (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  mattes, rmx2630, Turquine, RAZE

                  Then i should troll rate you for trying to disrupt the conversation. And those are the rules.

                  But that influence was brought to bear not (I believe) because of mysterious "control" mechanisms by which Israel, AIPAC, or the "New York money people" are able to run the country, but because they are able to mobilize existing public opinion.

                  And why is that public opinion so different in the US, compared to Europe? (at least the news are different, we are even allowed to be critical about Israel)

                  And believe me, having influence over Schumer, Hillary, now Dean and of course Rahm. You will get lot of power if you have access to the right people. Have you been following how Rudy was supposed to operate during his race? Money..donors..get the big donors.

                  "I have a dream" King Jr.

                  "I have a book deal" Perves Musharraf

                  by allmost liberal european on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 07:54:36 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  . (0+ / 0-)

                  And that wasn't a threat, just a nice way to remind you of the "rules". Not that i follow them myself.

                  "I have a dream" King Jr.

                  "I have a book deal" Perves Musharraf

                  by allmost liberal european on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 08:09:48 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Well, since you (3+ / 0-)

                    didn't troll rate me, I wasn't sure how to take it.

                    I do disagree, however, that making a logical argument about why someone else's argument is wrong is not a tr-able offense.  We criticise people all the time for being nuts here -- are we going to troll rate all of those comments?  I thought my comment was rather tame.

                    This is not the first time I've pointed out that there's an element here at dKos which is just as crazy leftwards as the Little Green Footbals are (or are said to be, I've never read them) on the right -- not just on the issue at question but on a whole host of unrelated subjects.

                    Don't blame me -- I voted for Weicker.

                    by LarryInNYC on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 08:14:11 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Nah (0+ / 0-)

                      To troll rate someone for that, in a diary like this, would be foolish. Only if the stupidity (doesn't matter on which side) gets out of control.

                      But the tactic you used, is ugly. Almost the same that i did to some UFO believers :)

                      Anyway, i'm leaving, enjoy!

                      "I have a dream" King Jr.

                      "I have a book deal" Perves Musharraf

                      by allmost liberal european on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 08:18:06 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                •  i think some people (0+ / 0-)

                  who defend the corrupting influence of organizations of all kinds of stripe, such as AIPAC, but specifically in this case AIPAC do so for a whole host of reasons... and some people do so in order to tar any critic of a policy of blind unthinking uncritical (in any substantive way) support of all policies of the Israeli government (although in AIPAC's case it often seems the most extreme right wing elements in it) as believers in some great international Jewish conspiracy - either for the ridicule of it or for the more despicable end of aligning any political opponent of theirs on Israeli issues with the perpetrators of Pogroms and the Holocaust

                  some people really suck at times

                  If no-one around you understands start your own revolution and cut out the middle man...

                  by ResponsibleAccountable on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 08:20:19 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  and then there are some... (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  mattes, Turquine, TomP

                  who criticize AIPAC simply for receiving stolen classified DOD information and then passing it on.

                  Implying that since there are some who crticize it for one thing overshadows honest concern about the organization itself is problematic.

                  The Chamber of Commerce is on a bit of a different playing field as it tends to be focused on American domestic issues rather than American foreign policy. And AAA doesn't receive stolen classified DOD information.

                  "Computer. End holographic program...Computer? Computer?"

                  by kredwyn on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 09:59:37 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Tobacco and NRA are targets, so should AIPAC (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  cotterperson, bewert

                  have their day in the sun.

                  Dear Mr. Congress Person, kiss my ass or I will use the Line Item Veto to hurt you.

                  by mattes on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 11:21:49 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  two words: STENNY HOYER (n/t) (0+ / 0-)
            •  an effective lobbying firm... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Hornito

              that receives classified DOD information from the now defunct Office of Special Plans.

              Did CAIR receive similiar info? How 'bout Friends of Sinn Fein?

              "Computer. End holographic program...Computer? Computer?"

              by kredwyn on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 09:51:04 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Name one politican critical of Israel (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              callmecassandra

              that still has a job. Even Carter said it was political suicide.

              Dear Mr. Congress Person, kiss my ass or I will use the Line Item Veto to hurt you.

              by mattes on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 11:18:43 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Representative James Moran (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                mattes

                Which isn't to say that there haven't been vigorous efforts to unseat him for some time.

                Let's get in the wayback machine and take a little trip back to 2004:

                http://www.wrmea.com/...

                In Moran’s case, however, the pro-Israel community is not relying on the power of money alone. In a March 26 article in The Washington Times, Charles Hurt reports: "Three top advisers to Sen. John Kerry are helping to unseat Rep. James P. Moran in an unusual effort to topple the seven-term fellow Democrat from Northern Virginia, who is routinely re-elected by wide margins."

                Hurt names Kerry advisers Robert M. Shrum, Steven A. Elmendorf and Steven A. Grossman, former AIPAC president and Howard Dean campaign chair, as working on behalf of Alexandria attorney Andrew Rosenberg. Moran’s June 8 primary challenger is a client of Rosenberg’s and has received contributions from Elmendorf and Grossman, according to the Times article.

                Moran’s latest sin was committed at an antiwar meeting last year, when, in response to a question from an audience member, he said, "If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this. The leaders of the Jewish community are influential enough that they could change the direction of where this is going, and I think they should."

                Since Israel’s backing of the war on Iraq is supposed to be a state secret, Moran’s remarks immediately elicited the charge which, in American public discourse, is always waiting in the wings—"pure, unadulterated anti-Semitism," in the words of the Anti-Defamation League. He also was stripped of his post of regional whip.

                •  Per Sharon, Israeli politicans were to stay mum. (0+ / 0-)

                  Israel’s backing of the war on Iraq is supposed to be a state secret

                  Olmert opened his mouth and said US invading Iraq was a good thing, and it made the ME more stable.

                  Dear Mr. Congress Person, kiss my ass or I will use the Line Item Veto to hurt you.

                  by mattes on Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 11:31:13 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

        •  They don't have my support (5+ / 0-)

          and I'm not ashamed to say so.

          "Whoever lives for the sake of combating an enemy has an interest in the enemy's staying alive." Friedrich Nietzsche

          by witchamakallit on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 07:26:14 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Majority support - cites please? (0+ / 0-)

          Please define "unswerving support" and provide some links that show majority support.

          "I do not like broccoli." - George H. W. Bush

          by Son of Broccoli on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 07:46:45 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  your argument seems odd (9+ / 0-)

          the reason the US public has such an uncritical view of Israel and its policies is due in large part to organizations like AIPAC

          it isn't about control it is about disproportionate influence - and let's not forget spying!

          i think it is disingenuous to argue against their influence when it is not seriously questioned in political circles

          If no-one around you understands start your own revolution and cut out the middle man...

          by ResponsibleAccountable on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 08:14:37 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  haha (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Meandering Fox, reason7

          Israel has support because they make sure no one forgets that they need our support. Groups like AIPAC work hard to lobby, other groups work on public relations, it is a  big effort that is put forth so the people of the United States don't just say "why the fuck should we care about Israel?" "They cost us how much a year?" and "Again, why the fuck should we care?"

          I say forget the holy land and move the Israelis to the Ba ha Peninsula, I'm sure we can find a Rabbi to bless it.  

          absolute freedom for one individual undoubtedly limits the freedom of another.

          by jbou on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 08:27:13 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Disagree With The Premise That The Policies Of (12+ / 0-)

          AIPAC have the support of the majority of the population. Most Americans support Israel's right to exist but that does not mean that they support the hard right position of Likud which AIPAC champions. Nor does that support translate into supporting America undertaking unnecessary wars because Israel's war hawks want us to.

        •  So how many other organizations... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Hornito, mattes

          Two of their reps were arrested by the Bush Administration for spying when they received classified information.  Hardly the all powerful secret pullers-of-strings many would have us believe.

          How many other organizations have the clout to have employees receive classified DOD information from someone in the Office of Special Plans and then pass it on to an ambassador?

          Last I checked...not that many.

          Maybe not massive string pullers. But I think reality is somewhere between "downplaying" and "hyperbole."

          Just saying...

          "Computer. End holographic program...Computer? Computer?"

          by kredwyn on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 09:41:14 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Not true, most people don't know who (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cotterperson, howardx

          who they are.

          and one of the few that actually have the support of a majority of the population.

          Dear Mr. Congress Person, kiss my ass or I will use the Line Item Veto to hurt you.

          by mattes on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 11:05:58 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  An answer (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cotterperson, wader, mattes

      Two of my former colleagues/employers are members of a similar group to AIPAC that is consolidated in one geographic region. The members give individually.

      The lobbyist group my former colleagues belong to gave George Allen $35K in individual donations and one donation to Allen's PAC.

    •  You are Deliberately Misleading (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cotterperson, mattes, howardx

      The Storm over the Israel Lobby

      Such an account, however, overlooks a key element in AIPAC's success: money. AIPAC itself is not a political action committee. Rather, by assessing voting records and public statements, it provides information to such committees, which donate money to candidates; AIPAC helps them to decide who Israel's friends are according to AIPAC's criteria. The Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that analyzes political contributions, lists a total of thirty-six pro-Israel PACs, which together contributed $3.14 million to candidates in the 2004 election cycle. Pro-Israel donors give many millions more. Over the last five years, for instance, Robert Asher, together with his various relatives (a common device used to maximize contributions), has donated $148,000, mostly in sums of $1,000 or $2,000 to individual candidates.

      A former AIPAC staff member described for me how the system works. A candidate will contact AIPAC and express strong sympathies with Israel. AIPAC will point out that it doesn't endorse candidates but will offer to introduce him to people who do. Someone affiliated with AIPAC will be assigned to the candidate to act as a contact person. Checks for $500 or $1,000 from pro-Israel donors will be bundled together and provided to the candidate with a clear indication of the donors' political views. (All of this is perfectly legal.) In addition, meetings to raise funds will be organized in various cities. Often, the candidates are from states with negligible Jewish populations.

      - Israel has the right to exist, and responsibility to coexist.

      by Opinionated Ed on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 10:09:55 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  from 2000, I'll try to find one more recent: (4+ / 0-)

      Dear Mr. Congress Person, kiss my ass or I will use the Line Item Veto to hurt you.

      by mattes on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 10:10:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  glad you picked this up (37+ / 0-)

    This one issue may be enough to get Wes Clark the support he needs to be nominated. I think he would be fair and balanced towards Israel, and certainly do everything to avoid war with  Iran. Nor sure how Edwards and Gore would come down this.

    We need a military man on the ticket.

  •  the fools must complete the errand. (4+ / 0-)

    We don't have time for short-term thinking.

    by Compound F on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 07:02:36 PM PST

  •  Israel can't stop making a fist (40+ / 0-)

    When will Israel learn that it can't shoot its way into peace? Pakistan already has nukes. Saudi Arabia could buy them tomorrow (if they haven't already). Iran, Indonesia, Libya, Syria, Egypt could all have nuclear weapons within a decade. Is Israel going to kill everyone in the Arab world to be "safe?"

    South Africa renounced its nuclear weapons when it realized the Apatheid system was unsustainable. Israel will need to make peace through negotiation, not war. The Old Testament is not a practical policy guide in the Nuclear era.

    •  Maybe they'll stop.... (6+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      maddercow, shpilk, gmb, Turkana, GoldnI, dyrrachium

      ...when everybody else in the region stops swinging at them?  

      •  nobody (6+ / 0-)

        is on the moral high-ground in that region.

        •  Of all the moral low ground in the region... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          maddercow, Swordsmith

          ...the Israelis are the highest up.

          •  Matter of opinion (11+ / 0-)

            No one in that region deserves any prizes.

            "Whoever lives for the sake of combating an enemy has an interest in the enemy's staying alive." Friedrich Nietzsche

            by witchamakallit on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 07:31:25 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yes yes.... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Swordsmith

              ...and there's no point in voting for Democrats because there's no difference between them and Republicans either.

              •  Not saying we shouldn't vote for Democrats (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                cotterperson, Turquine

                All we're saying is we have to hold their feet to the fire.

                "This is not a time for a candidate who will offend no one; it is time for a candidate who takes clear stands and kicks ass."....Molly Ivins

                by pelican on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 07:55:41 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  When it comes to foreign policy? (0+ / 0-)

                Not much...

                The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world She didn't exist.

                by callmecassandra on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 08:04:44 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  And this is relevent how? (0+ / 0-)

                What has your comment to do with my post?

                "Whoever lives for the sake of combating an enemy has an interest in the enemy's staying alive." Friedrich Nietzsche

                by witchamakallit on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 08:09:48 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Well I was trying to be subtle.... (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  hfjai, joesig

                  But since that clearly isn't working, let me be more blatant.

                  You're trying to drag the Israelis down by insisting that everybody in the region is 'just as bad' when in fact it's the Israelis who have been trying to stop the killing, and have usually gotten a restaurant, school, bus or other 'clear military hard target' blown up for their trouble.  (The Greens and Libertarians and to a lesser extent the Republicans bash the Democrats in the same way by claiming that Clinton's lies about what he did with his genitals were just as bad as Bush's lies about Iraq.)

                  They're not just as bad dammit.  In fact they're a damn sight better than Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, the PLO, the Palestinian Authority, or any of the other murderous thugs on the other side who deliberately target other people's children and hide behind their own to avoid retribution.

                  •  Well, I don't equate (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    howardx, Corwin Weber

                    "no one deserves any prizes" with

                    trying to drag the Israelis down by insisting that everybody in the region is 'just as bad'

                    but I guess you do.

                    "Whoever lives for the sake of combating an enemy has an interest in the enemy's staying alive." Friedrich Nietzsche

                    by witchamakallit on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 08:46:23 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Their current leadership is not making them (4+ / 0-)

                    look so great my friend.  Just as ours doesn't make us look so great either in the eyes of other countries.

                    •  Their current leadership.... (0+ / 0-)

                      ...is largely the result of the actions of others.  When the bombings stop, the Israelis tend to stop voting for Likud et al.

                      Back someone into a corner and they're going to get out the pit bull.  Drive around looking armed and menacing, and they're going to make sure a weapon is close by.  It may not be the most noble reaction, but it's hardly difficult to understand.

                      •  Who's getting backed into a corner? (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Hey BB

                        The people controlling 96% of the land or the ones made to travel through checkpoints and Palestinian-only roads whereever they go? Who drives around armed and looking menacing? The IDF or Hamas militants? Any armed Palestinian is considered a target by the IDF. Hell, any Palestinian within 300 feet of the wall or fence in Gaza is considered a target. Including children like 9-year old Aya al-Astal and 13-year old Iman al-Hams. The so called "purity of arms" of the IDF is a sad joke.

                        "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about the things that matter." Dr. ML King, from a jail cell in Birmingham, Alabama in 1963.

                        by bewert on Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 12:05:22 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  Bullshit--an hour before Olmert... (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    GN1927, Turquine

                    ...finally attended a peace talk in Egypt, the IDF invaded Ramallah on an "arrest" mission, killing 10 Palestinians, crushing dozens of cars with tanks and bulldozers, and just generally stating who rules the area.

                    That is the action of someone truly interested in trying to make peace.

                    Bullshit.

                    "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about the things that matter." Dr. ML King, from a jail cell in Birmingham, Alabama in 1963.

                    by bewert on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 09:11:35 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  From the article.... (0+ / 0-)

                      It began when troops tried to arrest fugitives from the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, a violent Fatah offshoot, in the vegetable market. A gunbattle erupted, and Israeli forces sent reinforcements, including armored personnel carriers, bulldozers, jeeps and an attack helicopter.

                      Do the Israelis not have the right to arrest fugitives?

                      •  Bulldozers as reinforcements in a gun-battle? (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        cotterperson, GN1927, Turquine
                        •  Whatever you have available. (0+ / 0-)

                          Any vehicle in a firefight.  Vehicles that are able to remove obstacles would even be useful.

                          •  Obstacles (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            cotterperson

                            like the houses of people who callously put their dwellings in the line of fire.  

                          •  Or hastily built barricades.... (0+ / 0-)

                            Or cars.  Or anything pulled down into the streets to stop vehicles.  

                            Oh, wait, I forgot.  Israel is evil and just wants to bulldoze buildings right and left and spend a huge amount of time, money and lives occupying territory they don't actually fucking want in the first place, that has nothing of value for them to take, and that is a constant thorn in their collective side.  Apparently they're also a society of evil masochists.  It has nothing to do with the more or less constant amount of ordanance coming from those territories.  I mean, it's not as if they moved into these territories after they were used to launch an unprovoked war against them or anything.... and it's also not as if the current leadership in these territories has anything but friendly words and actions for Israel... I mean wow.... what's their problem?  Don't they understand that when Hamas states that their intended goal is the absolute destruction of the state of Israel they mean that in the nicest possible way?  Terrible shame that they just don't see it, but then of course they're evil and bad bad bad.  I mean, they're jews!  Forgot.  My bad.

                          •  Did I say or imply anything remotely (0+ / 0-)

                            like what you're suggesting at the end of your comment?  

                            Let me answer for you: no.  

                          •  You are a fucking idiot (0+ / 0-)

                            Oh, wait, I forgot.  Israel is evil and just wants to bulldoze buildings right and left and spend a huge amount of time, money and lives occupying territory they don't actually fucking want in the first place, that has nothing of value for them to take, and that is a constant thorn in their collective side.

                            So why do they keep bulldozing Palestinian buildings and fields while building more settlements and settler-only roads? Because they don't really want the land? Because they don't want to control the water? The water has no value to them? They just put up a wall completely around Qalqilya because they felt like it, not because the area controls 80% of the water from the West Bank?

                            You really think that water has no value to Israel?

                            Dude, do you really know any more than what somebody has told you in your short life?

                            "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about the things that matter." Dr. ML King, from a jail cell in Birmingham, Alabama in 1963.

                            by bewert on Sat Jan 06, 2007 at 09:00:43 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  And once again a reference to age.... (0+ / 0-)

                            Odd.  I've never mentioned it.  Couldn't be that you're deliberately making assumptions, could it?  And using those assumptions to try to discredit a point?

                            Nooooo.... never that.  

                            What the settlers do is what the settlers do.  They make their own decisions.  In the presence of a peace agreement the settlements dry up.  Let's face it, the settlers are (overall) a bunch of far right wackos that nobody listens to much.... until the bombings start up again.  (See also Likud.)  Once people start getting shot at, (again) they start listening to the far right wackos.  (Again.)  If you want to stop that influence, here's a thought:

                            STOP BLOWING SHIT UP.

                          •  Sorry for the F-I comment, it was uncalled for (0+ / 0-)

                            No, I'm not trying to discredit a point as much trying to figure out why you reach such hypocritical conclusions based on the identity of combatants. Would you espouse the US military killing Iraqi children if they appeared to be "behaving in a manner consistent with children being used by terrorist groups as weapons"? Would you define such action as walking alone and unarmed several hundred feet away from any US military person?

                            Because that's what you are defining as perfectly acceptable in the Occupied Territories.

                            No, what the settlers do is not dependent upon them alone. The IDF and government has supported and enabled them from the beginning. From protection to roads to electricity. Without Israeli government support the settlers would not exist. And the biggest issue causing strife would not exist. It doesn't matter that hardly anyone listens to them, if those that do listen empower them with with soldiers and infrastructure.

                            You simply cannot continue to take peoples land, water and freedom, and not expect them to fight back. The settlers doubled between Oslo and the 2nd Intifada. That's the action of a party that really wants peace--to double the number of obstructions to peace during a time when they supposedly are trying to reach it?

                            The settlements doubled between Oslo and the start of the 2nd Intifada. No one may have been listening to the settlers in that period, but that doesn't mean they were not having a very direct affect upon the peace process.

                            The Palestinians tried to STOP BLOWING SHIT UP. All they got in return was a doubling of settlers. So what do you think they should do next?

                            As far as the age and experience thing, I've been studying this for almost 30 years. You learn more over time. Your positions simply sound relatively young and naive.

                            "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about the things that matter." Dr. ML King, from a jail cell in Birmingham, Alabama in 1963.

                            by bewert on Sun Jan 07, 2007 at 02:35:53 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Show me one place where I have said.... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...that I'm ok with this entire situation.

                            I'll wait.

                            You're seeing what you want to see, and deliberately introducing issues that aren't part of what we're discussing.  I have not justified Iraq.  I will not.  The Iraqis weren't shooting at us, and had no capacity to do so.  The Palestinians, on the other hand, are shooting at Israel.  Both the IDF and noncoms.  Historically, they in fact seem to prefer the noncoms as targets.  (So much less fun when your targets shoot back... terrible.  Can't have that, now can we?)

                            I could post yet another long, drawn out discussion here, but honestly I'm not going to bother.  I'll just post the same question to you that I've posted before and have yet to get any sort of clear answer to from anyone:

                            What the hell do you expect them to do?  What would you like for them to do?  What would soothe your conscience?  In the wake of Israeli children being blown apart for being Jews, not running up to military checkpoints, not being used as living bombs, not looking like people who are being used as living bombs, not acting like people who are being used as living bombs, not creating a diversion for yet another attack, not even thinking about people on the other side of the border, just going to school.  Going to cafes.  Going to the movies.

                            Blown to pieces by yet another bunch of antisemites.  People who feel that having been born a jew is a capital crime.

                            How would you like them to respond?  I'm not going to ask how you would respond.  Neither of us is in that situation.  What would make you happy?  I hear constant ranting about innocent Palestinians being killed.  I have yet to deny this happens.  I also have yet to say that it's a good thing.  I don't, in fact, think that it is.  Yet it happens, and will happen as long as there's fighting going on.

                            So here's your chance.  Save the world.  Enlighten the rest of us.  Give us the secret to peace in the middle east.  Note that I'm not asking for yet more antisemetic intellectual masturbation from the Guardian, or Hamas, or any of the rest.  Real solutions.  You don't like how the IDF is handling things.  Fine.  I can live with that.  I'm not particularly thrilled with it myself.  But, and here's the big one.... Exactly what fucking alternative do they have?  

                          •  Pull back and defend negotiated borders (0+ / 0-)

                            Instead of surrounding a population of several million and breaking them into hundreds of little disconnected areas. That would be a real start.

                            You are fixated on Israeli's being blown up, but what to do expect the Palestinians to do? There are multiple times more dead Palestinians than Israeli's. Don't you think they all have families and loved ones too? That they care about their own just as much as Israeli's do?

                            Occupying and physically dividing a population while you are taking their land and water, while killing thousands, arresting thousands more, busting up homes during searches, bulldozing homes, randomly firing into populated areas, etc. creates intense hostility. Any party that is invaded and treated in such a way will resist. Such resistance is completely legal under international law.

                            You forget that the first suicide bomber appeared almost 30 years after the occupation started, several years after the first intifada, where the IDF had a stated policy to "break their arms", literally. As these images made TV in most of the world, although not so much in the US, it didn't make Israel any friends as it portrayed heavily armed "Goliath's" holding teenage stonethrowers down as they broke their arms with rocks. These actions failed to break spirits, though. Suicide bombings are relatively new phenomenom, the first being in April, 1994 IIRC, and one that reeks of a lack of power and despair about any future.

                            The real attacks began with the second intifada, almost ten years after Oslo, which was supposed to bring peace and a Palestinian state but instead brought a doubling of settlers and the related land confiscations and restrictions on movement. This on the ground daily hassle in simply living ones life because you are occupied has always and will always lead to conflict. Blaming this conflict completely on the Palestinians is naive. The conflict simply will not end until the occupation ends.

                            Israel has consistently refused to negotiate borders. It has stated it would not do so until final status negotiations at some point in the future. Why not do so right from the start?

                            PS There is a good debate about this subject on Democracy Now today.

                            "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about the things that matter." Dr. ML King, from a jail cell in Birmingham, Alabama in 1963.

                            by bewert on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 10:53:03 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  And how would you suggest that happen, (0+ / 0-)

                            ...given the absolute lack of any sort of willingness to negotiate any borders at all on the part of the Palestinians?

                            What the Israelis are dealing with is a group of people who want them dead.  Period.  No negotiations, no conversations, no reasonable discourse.  Guns.  Bombs.  Poison.  Worse.  Exactly how does one negotiate borders with someone who feels your only appropriate borders are the walls of a pine box?

                            You are fixated on Israeli's being blown up, but what to do expect the Palestinians to do?

                            I expect them to talk.  Something they seem to be entirely unwilling to do on any regular basis, and when they do historically they have no interest in any actual agreement, just photo ops so that they can seem 'reasonable' to the naive.

                            There are multiple times more dead Palestinians than Israeli's. Don't you think they all have families and loved ones too? That they care about their own just as much as Israeli's do?

                            And you're fixated on the disparity in casualties.

                            Problem is, the Palestinians can cut their casualties to zero if they'd just put the fucking bombs down and learn to live with Jews as neighbors even if they do think they're icky.

                            You forget that the first suicide bomber appeared almost 30 years after the occupation started, several years after the first intifada, where the IDF had a stated policy to "break their arms", literally. As these images made TV in most of the world, although not so much in the US, it didn't make Israel any friends as it portrayed heavily armed "Goliath's" holding teenage stonethrowers down as they broke their arms with rocks. These actions failed to break spirits, though. Suicide bombings are relatively new phenomenom, the first being in April, 1994 IIRC, and one that reeks of a lack of power and despair about any future.

                            And you seem to forget why the Occupied Territories are occupied in the first place.  Shall I remind you?

                            They were the highway and staging ground for a massive, unprovoked, illegal and genocidally minded invasion that the Palestinians did absolutely nothing whatsoever to prevent and in fact frequently cheered on or actively assisted with.

                            And they got their asses handed to them.  In the process, Israel maintained control over these border regions to put some distance between themselves and people who were not only still spouting antisemetic propaganda, but who had already demonstrated their bloothirsty willingness to follow through on that propaganda.

                            And even after the Israelis handed them their asses, they have ever since been more than willing to give that territory back.  All that's required are some very simple conditions, and personally I don't find them unreasonable at all.  Do you honestly find conditions like 'recognize that we have a right to be where we're put and on land that we've paid good money for' and 'stop trying to kill us' to be all that onerous?

                            Israel has consistently refused to negotiate borders. It has stated it would not do so until final status negotiations at some point in the future. Why not do so right from the start?

                            Because there's no point in negotiating borders with people who won't even acknowledge your right to exist in the first place.  Until that particular little detail is taken care of, there's no point in discussing anything else.

                            For that matter, it's not as if withdrawing to their own borders has ever done them any particular good in the first place.  Remember Gaza?

                            Withdrawing didn't do them a damn bit of good there.  The attacks kept coming.

                            Who exactly would you suggest they negotiate borders with anyway?   Hamas?  Still officially committed to the total destruction of Israel.  Somehow I suspect that their only acceptable negotiation point will be 'die and be buried somewhere else.'  Hizbullah?  Not a whole hell of a lot better.  (IE they might allow the jewish people to be buried in Israel.)  The PLO?  They 'negotiate' when anybody's looking and when they think they can get international sympathy out of it.  You'll notice they never do come to any sort of reasonable agreement.

                            So who's left, really?  Who's there to stand up and say 'enough?'  Who among the Palestinians is going to be an adult and actually talk to Israel in good faith instead of childishly complaining about the nasty evil icky jews to anyone who will listen?  (And directing explosives into Israel all the while?)

                            The ball's been in their court since Camp David.  They have yet to actually do anything about it.

                          •  You call Gaza a case in point? (0+ / 0-)

                            Israel withdrew and promptly closed the borders 90% of the time, including the border with Egypt. Well over a million Gazans have been living on the goods from a dozen semi-trucks a day. Israel bombed the power plant and destroyed wells. Gazans managed to produce 20 million dollars with of produce which Israel refused to let pass through the border. Condi Rice negotiated an Agreement on Movement and Access for Gaza with Israel last year to much fanfare. Twelve months later a review of the status of that agreement showed Israel had reneged on every single item it agreed to.

                            The Palestinians pushed to negotiate borders back in 1993, when the PLO recognized Israel. Israel refused, stating it would only negotiate borders in a final status agreement, which was to be negotiated starting by May, 1996. Israel insisted on delaying negotiations until after upcoming elections and then Netanyahu was elected and refused to follow the Oslo plan. He insisted that the negotiated IDF redeployments out of parts of the West Bank would not happen until a final status agreement was at hand, instead of adhering to the already agreed upon phased redeployment during the interim agreement while the final status agreement was being negotiated. Meanwhile, public polls have repeatedly shown a large margin of Palestinians (whom you claim want all Israelis dead) want a two-state solution. Get your facts straight.

                            You know, you keep screaming about how there is no one to negotiate with. So Israel had someone to negotiate with over a decade ago, negotiated a process that was supposed to bring about a Palestinian state over a period of 3-4 years and than reneged. And instead they have madethe areas that Palestinians were allowed in smaller and smaller as they doubled the number of settlers and built more settler-only apartheid roads.

                            Hamas was ready to recognize Israel at the end of June, right before Israel spent a month bombing Lebanon. Of course, now Hamas wants more from Israel in return for recognition.

                            But does it really matter? Don't you negotiate with your enemies, not your friends? You sound a lot like Bush's people--no negotiations, we'll just bomb them until they know who is boss. That BS isn't working any better in Iraq than it is in Palestine.

                            So have you found a case of a child in Israel killed by a Qassam from Gaza yet? Didn't think so.

                            Tell you what, I'll make it easier for you. Give me some examples of Israel's willingness to give the West Bank back. Something in the last ten years that was a firm offer of negotiating the borders, with control of water, airspace, and border crossings included, by the Israeli government. That should be easy enough for you if Israel was truly interested in a two-state solution. And remember that Barak's "generous" offer did not include control over water, airspace or border crossings. Without such control you cannot have a viable state.

                            You fail to ever back up your opinions and just rave about the bloodthirsty Palestinians. You sound a lot like Era Rapaport. You might want to rethink your party affiliation, as you would fit in a lot better with the neocons running the Bush administration. Your views on I/P are pretty much identical to theirs.

                            "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about the things that matter." Dr. ML King, from a jail cell in Birmingham, Alabama in 1963.

                            by bewert on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 10:48:39 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  And you were doing so well too.... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...until you started channeling shergald.

                            We'll talk again later, I'm sure.... hopefully after you've given up the habit of dredging through the British tabloids for the most hysterical articles you can find and knocking down strawmen.  Until then, there's just not much point, is there?

                    •  You don't start peace talks... (0+ / 0-)

                      ...by raiding the middle of the capital city of the group you are sitting down with in a couple of hours. Not if you really want peace.

                      "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about the things that matter." Dr. ML King, from a jail cell in Birmingham, Alabama in 1963.

                      by bewert on Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 12:40:07 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  So, does Israel only kill "murderous thugs"? (3+ / 0-)

                    And are suicide bombers from Palestine far more evil than Israeli air and armored attacks on refugee camps?   I wonder if you have any idea how many Palestinian children have been killed by the Israeli military.  I wonder also if you have ever tried to imagine what it would be like to see the results of an airstrike or an armored attack on your neighbor's home. Those Israeli airstikes and armored attacks inevitably arouse yet more of those desperate "murderous thugs" that you erroneously accuse of hiding "behind their own to avoid retribution."  Quite obviously, the Israeli government does not let the presence of civilians get in the way of its attacks of retribution.  Hence, no Palestinian is safe and 'avoiding retribution', just as no Israeli is safe from a suicide bomber.

                    Get a grip.  No one here has tried to argue that "everybody in the region is 'just as bad'".  There are many innocents on both sides. There are also people on both sides who have done bloody awful things.  If you really feel that all the blame for the conflict rests with the Palestinians, I must conclude that you are quite narrow minded.

                    •  I'm well aware. (0+ / 0-)

                      I wonder if you have any idea how many Palestinian children have been killed by the Israeli military.

                      I am.... and I blame the cowards that hid behind them putting them in that situation in the first place for their deaths.

                      •  So, it's OK to attack civilian centers if you (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        cotterperson, callmecassandra

                        think you might kill a few 'cowardly murderous thugs' along with some unknown number of innocents?  What theory of justice in war does that come from?  And how do you even know if any of the ones killed were actual 'cowardly murderous thugs'?

                      •  So which coward was hiding behind these kids (0+ / 0-)

                        13-year old Iman al-Hams?

                        9-year old Aya al-Astal?

                        9-year-old Raghda al-Assar?

                        3-year old Rahma Abu Shamas?

                        Haneen Suliaman, Abdul Rahman Jadallah, Ghassan Kabaha, Ali Ghureiz, Haneen Abu Sitta, Nada Madhi, or Khalil al-Mughrabi?

                        The case of Khalil al-Mughrabi is telling. The 11-year-old was shot dead in Rafah by the Israeli army two years ago as he played football with a group of friends near the security fence. One of Israel's most respected human rights organisations, B'Tselem, wrote to the judge advocate general's office, responsible for prosecuting soldiers, demanding an inquiry. Months later, the office wrote back saying that Khalil was shot by soldiers who acted with "restraint and control" to disperse a riot in the area. However, the judge advocate general's office made the mistake of attaching a copy of its own, supposedly secret, investigation which came to a quite different conclusion - that the riot had been much earlier in the day and the soldiers who shot the child should not have opened fire. The report says a "serious deviation from obligatory norms of behaviour" took place.

                        In the report, the chief military prosecutor, Colonel Einat Ron, then spelled out alternative false scenarios that should be offered to B'Tselem. B'Tselem said the internal report confirmed that the army has a policy of covering up its crimes. "The message that the judge advocate general's office transmits to soldiers is clear: soldiers who violate the 'Open Fire Regulations', even if their breach results in death, will not be investigated and will not be prosecuted."

                        From one of those links, an IDF soldier states:

                        When I first got to Hebron I wouldn't open fire on little children. And I was sure that if I ever killed or hurt anyone, I'd go so crazy that I'd leave the army. But finally I did shoot someone, and nothing happened to me. In Hebron I shot the legs off of two kids, and I was sure I wouldn't be able to sleep anymore at night, but nothing happened. Two weeks ago I hurt a Palestinian policeman, and that didn't affect me either. You become so apathetic you don't care at all. Shooting is the IDF soldier's way of meditating. It's like shooting is your way of letting go of all your anger when you're in the army. In Hebron there's this order they call "punitive shooting": just open fire on whatever you like. I opened fire not on any sources of fire but on windows where there was just wash hanging to dry. I knew that there were people who would be hit. But at that moment it was just shoot, shoot, shoot.

                        "Punitive shooting". That's fucking disgusting.

                        "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about the things that matter." Dr. ML King, from a jail cell in Birmingham, Alabama in 1963.

                        by bewert on Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 12:37:04 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  You should read your own links.... (0+ / 0-)

                          Densely crowded

                          Groups like the Hamas organisation often fire crudely made missiles into the settlements or nearby towns in Israel where they can fall on family homes, or on schools or nurseries.

                          Palestinian schoolgirl passes an Israeli tank in Nablus
                          Israel occupation means fear for many Palestinian children
                          And the militants say that as long as the Israeli occupation of Gaza continues they will strike at these targets.

                          They attack from the edges of the refugee camps and the Israeli army tries to hit them there.

                          The soldiers fire into some of the most densely crowded places in the world.

                          This has gone on here almost every day for four years.

                          And this is why so many children and teenagers in the occupied territories have died - 34 Israelis, and more than 550 Palestinians.

                          Emphasis mine.

                          This is what these soldiers deal with daily.  Militants that fire at civilians from refugee camps.  Children that carry bombs.  Yes, children under 10. Boys under 13 that carry and use Kalishnakovs.  The fact that the children have no moral culpability is irrelevant.  What's relevant is how many, and who they kill.

                          Yes, the IDF is a bit paranoid in that region.  Yes, mistakes are made.  But in those articles I'm seeing a lot of accusations, and little evidence.  You shriek about IDF troops shooting children, when nobody's been able to determine WHO fired the shots, (using the case of the girl shot in her school as an example,) and the IDF states that they didn't fire at the school, and there was a lot of shooting going on at the time from the Palestinians as well.  You will no doubt be ranting at me right now, but answer me this:

                          The IDF uses a FN FAL assault rifle as their standard issue weapon.  Since the Palestinians have the bodies of these children.... and presumably have the bullet.... why aren't they coming right out and saying 'yes the IDF killed this child in cold blood and we can prove it?'

                          You don't suppose... *gasp*  that the bullet may not have come from an FN?  That it might instead have come from *GASP* a Kalishnakov?  (The bullets are actually fairly easy to tell apart.  They're the same diameter, but different lengths.  Warsaw Pact vs. NATO.)

                          No.... never that.  After all.... the Israels are cruel and evil and torture babies for fun.  Right?  Only the noble Palestinians want peace.... they want it so badly that they repeatedly launch missles out of refugee camps at cafes and schools to get it!  Right?

                          The American media aren't the only ones with a slight tendency toward sensationalism.  It is, tragically, an international problem.  They also tend to frequently have a slight knee-jerk reaction toward accusations against Israel.... which are frequently quickly proven to be incorrect.  (Anybody remember the Jenin 'massacre,' as an example?  Whole bunch of people jumped on that one... until the UN went in and found out that yes, the place in fact was a Hamas base.)

                          •  Under Geneva occupiers are legal targets (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            callmecassandra

                            Including settlers. Those that are occupied are not legal targets, unless they are committing crimes. The IDF admits regular indiscrimate firing into areas crowded with civilians. That is a war crime.

                            Gladly the IDF is no longer along the Philadelphi Corridor firing indiscriminately into areas crowded with civilians.

                            Little evidence?

                            From...the tape recording of the radio conversation between soldiers at the scene..:

                            Watchtower: "A girl of about 10, she's behind the embankment, scared to death."

                            A few minutes later, Iman is shot in the leg from one of the army posts.

                            The watchtower: "I think that one of the positions took her out."

                            The company commander then moves in as Iman lies wounded and helpless.

                            Captain R: "I and another soldier ... are going in a little nearer, forward, to confirm the kill ... Receive a situation report. We fired and killed her ... I also confirmed the kill. Over."

                            Witnesses described how the captain shot Iman twice in the head, walked away, turned back and fired a stream of bullets into her body. Doctors at Rafah's hospital said she had been shot at least 17 times.

                            On the tape, the company commander then "clarifies" why he killed Iman: "This is commander. Anything that's mobile, that moves in the zone, even if it's a three-year-old, needs to be killed. Over."

                            Yeah, I guess that's just an accusation by the Israeli TV news show that played it...

                            How about this?:

                            ...the Israeli army later said Aya was behaving in a suspicious manner reminiscent of a terrorist - she got too close to the border fence - and so a soldier fired several bullets into the child, hitting her in the neck and blowing open her stomach.

                            Aya was the second child killed by the Israeli army last week. Soldiers near Ramallah shot 13-year-old Munadel Abu Aaalia in the back as he walked along a road reserved for Jewish settlers with two friends. The army said the boys planned to throw rocks at Israeli cars, which the military defines as terrorism.

                            So, if you are a Palestinian kid that throws rocks, you get a death sentence. Again, just accusations but no evidence? I guess when the IDF itself admits to killing a child, that is not considered truthful by you.

                            Jenin a Hamas base? Hamas has offices all over the Occupied Territories, as they have a large social services arm as well as a militant arm. Children carrying bombs? Please provide links to your facts.

                            A single IDF bulldozer operator named Moshe Nissim bragged about bulldozing a large part of the center of the Jenin camp:

                            "For three days I just erased and erased. The entire area. I took down any house from which there was shooting. To take it down, I would take down several more. The soldiers warned with a speaker, that the tenants must leave before I come in, but I did not give anyone a chance. I did not wait ... I would give a house the hardest push, so it would fall as fast as possible ... Others may have been more restrained. Or they say the have. Don’t believe their stories ... There were many people in the houses we started to destroy ... I did not see a house fall on a live person. But if there was such a case, I don’t give a damn. I’m sure that people died in these houses, but it was hard to see, there were tons of dust and we worked a lot at night. I enjoyed seeing each house fall, because I knew that they don’t mind dying, but a house hurts them more ... If something hurts me, it’s that we did not erase the entire camp."

                            Nissim continues, telling about his emotions: "I had a great satisfaction, a great fun ... I couldn’t stop. I wanted to keep on working all the time. I drove the Golani officer nuts over the radio ... After the fighting was over, we received an order to get the D-9’s out of there ... the Army did not want the photographers and journalists to see us at work ... I fought with them to let me ruin more ... I had a great satisfaction at Jenin. Tons of satisfaction. It was like concentrating all these 18 years in which I’ve done nothing [on reserve duty - AO] into three days. The soldiers came to me and said, ‘Kurdish, thank you, thank you.’

                            But then, I suppose to you they are all just terrorists, so just kill them all and let God sort them out.

                            You hang your argument on a single case by ignoring the UN statements in favor of the IDF spokesman. The IDF has repeatedly been caught lying, as I noted in my comment above. Meanwhile you ignore all the other cases where the IDF admitted killing children, for one reason or another.

                            Tell me, how many children have been killed by rockets fired from Gaza into Israel?

                            But then I guess that 550+ dead kids don't make any difference to you, as long as they are not Israeli. And if anyone complains about them, it's just sensationalism. But when an IDF soldier actually admits shooting the legs off a couple of kids, that's fine and dandy. He's just under a lot of stress, you know...

                            How can you call yourself a democrat when you put one people above another? That goes against the basic concept of democracy.

                            "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about the things that matter." Dr. ML King, from a jail cell in Birmingham, Alabama in 1963.

                            by bewert on Sat Jan 06, 2007 at 11:12:48 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Oi.... where do I start? (0+ / 0-)

                            Including settlers. Those that are occupied are not legal targets, unless they are committing crimes.

                            ...ignoring of course that the occupied in this case readily admit to repeated, ongoing and deliberate attacks on noncombatant civilians.

                            That would be a crime, by the way.

                            The IDF admits regular indiscrimate firing into areas crowded with civilians. That is a war crime.

                            The IDF admits returning fire into areas crowded with civilians under circumstances where fire is coming from those areas... from civilian combatants who are using civilian noncoms as cover.

                            I'll ask you as well.  What exactly would you have them do?  It's easy to stand back and suggest they should 'turn the other cheek' (a christian tradition, not a jewish one, by the way) when you aren't the one getting shot at and it isn't your children that are being murdered.

                            On the tape, the company commander then "clarifies" why he killed Iman: "This is commander. Anything that's mobile, that moves in the zone, even if it's a three-year-old, needs to be killed. Over."

                            Welcome to life in a combat zone.  Is this a good thing?  No.  Is it hard to understand that a commander places more value on the lives of those who serve with him than on the lives of people who are actively aiding the people who are trying to kill him and his people?  Not at all.

                               ...the Israeli army later said Aya was behaving in a suspicious manner reminiscent of a terrorist - she got too close to the border fence - and so a soldier fired several bullets into the child, hitting her in the neck and blowing open her stomach.

                               Aya was the second child killed by the Israeli army last week. Soldiers near Ramallah shot 13-year-old Munadel Abu Aaalia in the back as he walked along a road reserved for Jewish settlers with two friends. The army said the boys planned to throw rocks at Israeli cars, which the military defines as terrorism.

                            So, if you are a Palestinian kid that throws rocks, you get a death sentence. Again, just accusations but no evidence? I guess when the IDF itself admits to killing a child, that is not considered truthful by you.

                            The use of child bombers is quietly, but well documented.

                            This is what these soldiers live with on a daily basis.  Children as weapons.  You don't.  Neither do I.

                            Now.... given that the Palestinians in this case are known to use children as walking bombs in this conflict, possibly you could be just a bit less judgemental when the IDF is a bit paranoid about anyone getting too close, including children?

                            Or would that be stretching your comfort zone just a bit too much?

                            Jenin a Hamas base? Hamas has offices all over the Occupied Territories, as they have a large social services arm as well as a militant arm. Children carrying bombs? Please provide links to your facts.

                            Well here's a brief overview.

                            Take particular note of the section regarding the reactions of Human Rights Watch, a group that's reasonably notorious for knee-jerk defense of the Palestinians.... followed shortly by sheepish retractions when they actually get around to looking at the evidence.  (As happened in this case.)

                            But then, I suppose to you they are all just terrorists, so just kill them all and let God sort them out.

                            Not at all.... but terrorists are in fact there.  Again, what exactly would you have them do?  It's very easy for you to sit back and insist that they should just let their people be murdered to soothe your conscience.  It's much harder to suggest an alternative that doesn't involve them letting their own people be slaughtered.

                            You hang your argument on a single case by ignoring the UN statements in favor of the IDF spokesman.

                            Not at all, it's just one example out of many.

                            Tell me, how many children have been killed by rockets fired from Gaza into Israel?

                            Too many.  The fact that the number has decreased in recent years is a direct result of the fact that the Israelis have managed to get more shelters built and have set up better systems for getting into them when the missiles start falling.  It is most emphatically not the result of fewer attacks.

                            But then I guess that 550+ dead kids don't make any difference to you, as long as they are not Israeli. And if anyone complains about them, it's just sensationalism. But when an IDF soldier actually admits shooting the legs off a couple of kids, that's fine and dandy. He's just under a lot of stress, you know...

                            Ah, the Strawman.  Lovely old tactic.

                            550+ dead children is a tragedy, regardless of nationality.  I'm simply putting the blame for these deaths where it belongs.  On the attackers, not on those who are forced to defend themselves against this attack.

                            The Israelis aren't christians and neither am I.  I'm hardly going to demand that they "turn the other cheek" in this case.

                            How can you call yourself a democrat when you put one people above another? That goes against the basic concept of democracy.

                            I'll judge as I see fit, thank you very much.  Being a Democrat means not being an easily led sheep... and requires the ability to look past propaganda and get to the facts at hand.  I've done this.  Clearly you prefer hysteria, hyperbole and propaganda.  Anything to soothe your battered conscience.

                          •  You advocate killing children (0+ / 0-)

                            You give a pass to the people actually pulling the triggers, because they "...are forced to defend themselves against this attack." What attack? Which child that I pointed out to you was attacking anyone with lethal force? The closest one was purportedly planning to throw rocks at cars. Every other one did not attack anyone.

                            You actually are OK with killing a child from hundreds of feet away because they look like they "might" be a terrorist? And you call yourself a democrat?

                            I had a long rant, but its not worth it. You state that "...ignoring of course that the occupied in this case readily admit to repeated, ongoing and deliberate attacks on noncombatant civilians." while meanwhile stating "Is it hard to understand that a commander places more value on the lives of those who serve with him than on the lives of people who are actively aiding the people who are trying to kill him and his people?  Not at all."

                            Iman was actively aiding somebody trying to kill Israeli's when her kill was confirmed?

                            You keep claiming that kids who the IDF has said were in the wrong place or were stone throwers are "actively trying to kill" Israeli's. Sorry, but that is simply bullshit.

                            By the way, attacking settlers that have taken your land by force is not a crime under Geneva. Get over it. If they use force to occupy land, force can be used against them, period.

                            "The IDF admits returning fire into areas crowded with civilians under circumstances where fire is coming from those areas"

                            Do you even bother reading the comments you reply to? Did you not read the description of "punitive fire"? That was not directed at fire coming from any area. It was just random fire.

                            You still haven't provided a single example of a child in Israel killed by a rocket from Gaza. Just a statement: "Too many". So, can you actually give me just one?

                            A strawman is an actual quote from an actual IDF soldier? Bullshit. Period. And you simply do not address any of the cases where the IDF has admitted killing children who posed them no harm.

                            Your brief overview, the Wiki report, does not claim that Jenin is a Hamas stronghold, it states its a base for every militant Palestinian group. It's one of the main refugee camps in the territories, so of course every militant group has a presence there.

                            You judge as you see fit. Meaning whatever the IDF does is OK, as far as you are concerned. Don't question the IDF spokesman, for they are always right. Just as our spokesmen are in Iraq. Provide a link to the single case of someone under 16 wearing a suicide belt and construe that to justify the killing of over 500 kids for them helping slaughter Israeli's.

                            You blame "the attackers", yet virtually all the killing is in the occupied territories. Who is attacking whom, then? How can the attackers be attacking when they are on their own land? Doesn't that simple fact make them defenders, not attackers?

                            How about Israel simply declares borders and defends them? How about it quits taking land and water and lets the Palestinians conduct themselves on their own. How about it does it for real, rather than just talking about it and not doing it, like in Oslo, where it never gave up control over more than 12% of the 22% in the territories? Never gave up control over more than 3% of the occupied land. That's making peace?

                            Who is being slaughtered? Have you checked body counts lately? More were killed in Gaza this summer than have been killed in Israel in the last two years. And you claim its the Israeli's being slaughtered?

                            You state in your one diary that "Yes, I'm a liberal.  A leftist." Yet you advocate killing children because they somehow are helping kill Israeli's, that they might somehow harm an IDF soldier from hundreds of feet away. That doesn't really add up to me. A leftist actually values life. He places the blame of killing innocents upon the person making the decision to pull the trigger.  

                            All lives, not just Jewish lives. You can take a case of an unarmed child being shot hundreds of feet inside the border fence and try to make us believe that child is somehow a threat to the armed and armored soldier that fired the fatal shots.

                            That is simply disgusting.

                            You need to go over to Free Republic, where you will find much more agreement for your views. Killing children for simply walking in the "wrong" place is simply not accepted in any civilized societies.

                            Except in Israel, by people like you.

                            PS How old are you, and how much real knowledge do you have? What books have you read? Where have you traveled? Whom have you spoken with?

                            "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about the things that matter." Dr. ML King, from a jail cell in Birmingham, Alabama in 1963.

                            by bewert on Sat Jan 06, 2007 at 08:42:24 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Deliberately obtuse much? (0+ / 0-)

                            You give a pass to the people actually pulling the triggers, because they "...are forced to defend themselves against this attack." What attack? Which child that I pointed out to you was attacking anyone with lethal force? The closest one was purportedly planning to throw rocks at cars. Every other one did not attack anyone.

                            And yet, of every one demonstrably killed by the IDF.... wait for it....

                            Every single one was behaving in a manner consistent with children being used by terrorist groups as weapons.

                            Are their deaths tragic?  Hell yes.  Do I like this whole situation?  Hell no.  But what the hell do you expect the IDF to do?  Roll over and die like good little Jews?

                            I'm thinkin that's not a great option.

                            You still haven't provided a single example of a child in Israel killed by a rocket from Gaza. Just a statement: "Too many". So, can you actually give me just one?

                            Now you're just being deliberately obtuse.  But since that's the case....

                            This is just one month.

                            You're also deliberately ignoring the fact that these deaths were entirely senseless, caused by illegal bombings from illegal terrorist groups.  Or do you somehow think Hizbullah has some inherent right to bomb Israel?  Does Hamas?  Fatah?

                            If any of these groups were serious about stopping the killings they'd stop shooting and bombing.  Historically speaking, Israel shoots back.

                            Your brief overview, the Wiki report, does not claim that Jenin is a Hamas stronghold, it states its a base for every militant Palestinian group. It's one of the main refugee camps in the territories, so of course every militant group has a presence there.

                            Did you even read the article?

                            The second largest refugee camp in the West Bank, and lying close to Israeli settlements and the green line, the Jenin camp had come under Palestinian civil and security control in 1995. According to Israeli and Palestinian observers who gave information to the UN, 200 armed men from the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, Tanzim, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and Hamas had been using the camp as a base, and of the 100 suicide bombers who had launched attacks since the intifada began in October 2000, 23 [5] or 28 [6] attacks had been launched from the Jenin camp. [7]

                            Emphasis mine.

                            Now.... is launching suicide bombing attacks something you want to endorse as a legitimate use for a civilian refugee camp?

                            You blame "the attackers", yet virtually all the killing is in the occupied territories. Who is attacking whom, then? How can the attackers be attacking when they are on their own land? Doesn't that simple fact make them defenders, not attackers?

                            Except that if they actually gave a damn about stopping the violence, it would be quite easy for them.  They've had numerous opportunities in the past, and rejected every one.  It's actually quite simple:

                            1. Stop blowing shit up.
                            1. Recognize Israel's right to exist within any borders.

                            Problem solved.  But that's not good enough for them.  So they continue the violence.

                            How about Israel simply declares borders and defends them? How about it quits taking land and water and lets the Palestinians conduct themselves on their own. How about it does it for real, rather than just talking about it and not doing it, like in Oslo, where it never gave up control over more than 12% of the 22% in the territories? Never gave up control over more than 3% of the occupied land. That's making peace?

                            You're of course ignoring the part where they offered to give back 98% of the territories in question.... and Arafat threw the offer back in their faces.

                            Who is being slaughtered? Have you checked body counts lately? More were killed in Gaza this summer than have been killed in Israel in the last two years. And you claim its the Israeli's being slaughtered?

                            The fact that the Israelis are better fighters doesn't make the Palestinians more 'right.'  The Israelis have gotten better at protecting themselves over the years.  More shelters, more soldiers, better plans for evacuating and getting the hell out of the way of incoming missles.  None of which should be required in the first place, but there it is.

                            The disparity in numbers is only a tiny fraction of the story.  Tragically, it's the fraction you focus on instead of looking at the entire conflict.

                            You state in your one diary that "Yes, I'm a liberal.  A leftist." Yet you advocate killing children because they somehow are helping kill Israeli's, that they might somehow harm an IDF soldier from hundreds of feet away. That doesn't really add up to me. A leftist actually values life. He places the blame of killing innocents upon the person making the decision to pull the trigger.  

                            I value the life of someone minding their own business more than I do that of someone actively trying to kill someone who hasn't harmed them.  I extend this to people who would be minding their own business if they weren't being shot at.  I'm funny that way.  I place the blame of killing innocents upon the person putting those innocents in that position in the first place.

                            You need to go over to Free Republic, where you will find much more agreement for your views. Killing children for simply walking in the "wrong" place is simply not accepted in any civilized societies.

                            Accidental killings happen in war.  It's not a good thing.  It's also something nobody has been able to figure out a way to prevent.  Best way to prevent it?  Prevent war.  Now.  That having been said, would it not seem reasonable that maybe, just maybe, if Hamas, Fatah, Hizbullah and all of the other maniacs in the region would take a step back and talk rather than shoot that they might not get shot back at?  (This is, after all, exactly what has happened on the rare occasions when they've actually tried it.)  And maybe, just maybe, if they'd stop hiding behind children and using them as weapons they might have just a bit more credibility when it comes to complaining about body counts?

                            By the way.... 'go to freep' is the new Godwin's.  Just sayin.  :)

                          •  So walking in the wrong area justifies execution? (0+ / 0-)

                            "Every single one was behaving in a manner consistent with children being used by terrorist groups as weapons."

                            Huh? Please explain that in detail for me. A child walking alone unarmed several hundred feet from a fence is "behaving in a manner" that justifies their death? A kid shot in the back walking down a road unarmed is "behaving in a manner" that justifies his death? An 11-year old hanging a flag on a fence in a crowd of other kids is "behaving in a manner" that justifies his death? I'm really having trouble with executing unarmed children hundreds of feet away from any Israeli, whether settler or soldier. I fail to see how it can be justified, whether acting in some consistent manner or not. Were they planting bombs? Were they threatening injury to soldiers or settlers in any way?

                            Why exactly should they be put to death? As a leftist, liberal democrat, how can you justify the killing of children on the suspicion that they are acting in a manner consistent with aiding terrorists? What is the definition of that?

                            I value the life of someone minding their own business more than I do that of someone actively trying to kill someone who hasn't harmed them.  I extend this to people who would be minding their own business if they weren't being shot at.

                            If you value all life equally, wouldn't that mean these kids actually throwing stones at civilians could be killed, too? Every single case I linked to was minding their own business far more than these kids are.

                            Similarly, do you believe our Marines were justified killing people in Haditha who arguably could have assisted terrorists because they lived next to a site where an IED went off, killing an American soldier?

                            If not, what is the difference in such killing in Palestine versus Iraq?

                            As for Jenin, if out of over 15,000 inhabitants, 200 were militants associated with several different groups, I would hardly call that a base. Yes, a large percentage of suicide bombers came out of Jenin. No, that does not allow the mass destruction of housing, water, electric and sewage systems, etc. Collective punishment is a war crime.

                            On a related note, the link you gave me about a child killed by a Gaza rocket does not have any. It is a list of casualties from the war against Hizbollah in Lebanon.

                            What I can't figure out is why does Israel station soldiers all over the West Bank, at hundreds of checkpoints, instead of simply pulling back and using all those troops in guarding a border? Wouldn't that make more sense if you wanted to stop infiltrators?

                             Or do you somehow think Hizbullah has some inherent right to bomb Israel?  Does Hamas?  Fatah?

                            Do you somehow think Israel has the right to settle occupied territories? Do you not think that putting over 400,000 settlers into East Jerusalem and the West Bank, along with settler only roads breaking up contiguity between Palestinian population centers, does not have something to do with the overall conflict? That the control and taking of the majority of the water supply does not have something to do with it?

                            It's actually quite simple:

                            Stop blowing shit up.
                            Recognize Israel's right to exist within any borders.

                            They tried this in 1993. Don't you remember the exhange of letters between Arafat and Rabin? Let me quote Arafat:

                            The signing of the Declaration of Principles marks a new era in the history of the Middle East. In firm conviction thereof, I would like to confirm the following PLO commitments:

                            The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security.

                            The PLO accepts United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.

                            Unfortunately, Rabin was murdered and Bibi was elected, who immediately stalled any more peace moves by Israel. Ultimately, Israel doubled the number of settlers between 1993 and the start of the second intifada. And no, Palestinian extremists did not stop violence any more than extremist settlers, such as Baruch Goldman, did. However, since Israel never gave up security control over more than "Area A", and retained security control over 88% of the West Bank, I find it hard to totally blame the Palestinian police for not stopping all terror. How can they stop it when they are fired upon if they have a weapon in the vast majority of the area? Is not the party that maintains security control actually responsible for said security?

                            You're of course ignoring the part where they offered to give back 98% of the territories in question.... and Arafat threw the offer back in their faces.

                            Please provide a map backing up your assertion. Did this land offer include giving Palestinians control over their own borders, water (including the water basin near Qalqiyla) and airspace? Was it contiguous? Did it include in the overall area the parts of East Jeruslaem unilaterally annexed by Israel, or was it "98%" of the rest of the land? Did it include a security zone controlled by Israel between Palestine and Jordan? If it did not include control over water, airspace, and borders, how could it possibly make Palestine a viable nation-state?

                            I keep hearing this talk about teaching the Arabs a lesson, of hitting them so hard they will just give up, that if a serious enough blow is delivered they will understand that they don't have a right to tell Israel what to do with the land. Tell me, where you grew up, would that work with people you grew up with? If some outside and much more militarized group came in and started taking your land and water, delivering violent blows to "teach" you who was in charge, what would the reaction have been? Would you and your neighbors have just given up?

                            So why do you think the Palestinians will just give up what little land they have left without a fight? Do you think they should?

                            PS Forgive me for calling you a "fucking idiot" earlier. That was uncalled for and inflammatory.

                            "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about the things that matter." Dr. ML King, from a jail cell in Birmingham, Alabama in 1963.

                            by bewert on Sun Jan 07, 2007 at 12:17:33 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

          •  You mean (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Hey BB

            like being named 'tallest midget'?

            The Grasshopper Lies Heavy

            by FrankFrink on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 07:54:08 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I mean... (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              shpilk, Swordsmith, hfjai, dyrrachium

              ...that being the only nation in the region that seems to be willing to stop shooting, and does so until they inevitably get shot at yet again.... does up their moral standing in my eyes.

              Have there been mistakes?  Sure.  Are their mistakes better than everybody else's deliberate actions?  Hell yes.

              •  "seems to be willing to stop shooting" (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                StupidAsshole, Turquine

                In which the operative word is seems

              •  biased. (5+ / 0-)

                "stop shooting" is similar to "collateral damage."  It's PR nonsense that attempts to gain moral high ground where there is none and split a messy conflict into black-and-white certainty.

                Sure, Israel can claim to "stop shooting" at any given arbitrary moment.  And they probably do stop shooting.  The only problem is that they preclude the act they just committed prior to their "stop shooting" pact with, most likely, themselves.

                That doesn't mean Israel is more moral.  It just means they have a PR industry.

                If they really wanted to win moral points they would learn to not retaliate for any act and learn to turn the other cheek.  But of course, advocating such a thing will get construed as saying Israel should stop defending themselves which will then get construed as saying Israel has no right to exist.

                It should be evident by the 21st century that bombs and guns is not about security, but about vengeance and/or domination.  You can't very well turn around the death of a person by going elsewhere and intimidating people with violence.

                "it's a success that hasn't occurred yet" —The entirely nonpartisan Frances Fragos Townsend on capturing Osama bin Laden.

                by hour on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 08:39:02 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I'll ask you the same question I ask others: (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  zemblan

                  What exactly would you like for them to do?  Stand by and do nothing at all while their children are murdered before their eyes?

                  Not soldiers.  Not police.  Not armed combatants.  Children.  Killed by missles.  And carbombs.  And suicide bombs.  While the people launching these attacks stand back and hide behind.... other children.

                  What exactly would you have them do?

                  •  Why don't they just use their nuclear weapons (0+ / 0-)

                    then?  Why don't they just blow the whole damn place to bits so that no one shoots at them any more.  I am exhausted by your question.  It has been asked so many times that it has become trite and sickening.  I'd have them blow the entire world to bits.  What do you think about that idea?  Don't ask rhetorical questions that will get you a very wrong answer.  The reality is that they was the United States to blow the whole damn place up for them by the sound of it and you know I just don't feel like doing it for them.  They can do it themselves.  They have nuclear weapons and if they want to have people blown up they should do it themselves.  Geez.

                    •  Damned if they do.... (0+ / 0-)

                      ...and damned if they don't.  That would in fact be the point.

                      If they respond to the attacks by trying to kill the people who are targeting their children, they get shit for it.  Never mind that they could in fact, as we could, turn Iran or any other nation in the region into a glass parking lot.

                      I'd say that the fact that they could, and haven't... in spite of intense provocation over the past few decades says a lot about who holds the higher moral ground here.  They're facing a knife wielding maniac.  They knock him back on his ass instead of pulling out the .44 they have in the back of their collective pants.

                  •  Declare borders based on the Green Line and... (0+ / 0-)

                    ...pull back and defend that border. Simple as that.

                    Why is that so hard?

                    PS, you still have failed to provide me with the name of an Israeli child killed by a missle from Gaza...  I mean, you keep talking about them, but can you document one? Just one? Is it really that hard? I mean, listening to you spew, there have to be dozens.

                    "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about the things that matter." Dr. ML King, from a jail cell in Birmingham, Alabama in 1963.

                    by bewert on Sat Jan 06, 2007 at 09:15:58 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                •  They didn't stop in Lebanon this summer for (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Hornito, cotterperson, witchamakallit

                  a very, very long time. Their current leadership tested my patience to the degree that my unconditional and unquestioned support of anything Israel was decidedly undermined.  They will have to gain trust from me and getting my government to attack Iran for them will not rebuild my trust in their leadership.  Quite the opposite will happen.

                  •  A few retired IDF officers spouting nonsense... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    dyrrachium

                    ...does not equate to Israel trying to get our government to try to attack Iran.

                    •  Who are you and where did you come from? (4+ / 0-)

                      This question of Iran/Israel has been out there for some time now.  For what two years at least?  Everyone knows that Israel's attack on Lebanon was supposed to be the grand test run for Iran...  Israel lost and the NeoCons had to go back into their caves to find another opportune moment to launch their PNAC bullshit about Iran.  Lebanon was as they say "a set back", but they still want to go into Iran and they (the US and Israeli NeoCons) have been talking about it for ages.

                      •  They want Iran to not have nukes. (0+ / 0-)

                        Personally, I don't blame them.  I don't want them to have them either.  Let's face it.... the days of Persia being the seat of rational thought in this world are long gone.  If the reformists gain some traction, those days might come back.  I honestly hope it happens.... but at the moment it's not exactly looking promising.

                        Lebanon was attacked primarily because Lebanon had troops massing at the border.  Statements about 'trial runs' are nothing more than rank speculation at best.

                        •  Iran is NOT going to have nukes for like (4+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Hornito, cotterperson, wahuwa, TomP

                          FIVE TO TEN FREAKIN' YEARS!!!!  Get a grip!

                          We don't need to bomb them tomorrow.  We have time to take other tacks.

                          •  Yes we do.... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...and I happen to agree with Gen. Clark, (and, I suspect, you) that these options should be used and military action should only be an absolute last resort, used after all other methods have failed.

                            The fact that Iran won't let inspectors in, and that they're rather cozy with another nation who has a large population of nutcases that already has nukes, and that they seem to be growing more and more militant, rather than more and more reasonable, is cause for concern.

                          •  Do you understand that Russia is funding Iran's (8+ / 0-)

                            nuclear program?  Do you understand that Russia is Syria's big ally?  Do you get that China wants Iran to be doing anything but using its own oil because China wants to buy it?  Here we are insisting that Iran must not have nuclear weapons and our second largest creditor - China - and Russia are totally against us on this one.  We have to talk our way out of this one.  It isn't Iran's proposed nuclear program that worries me at this point.  It is our insane meniacal president who thinks that the only way to do business is with a gun.  We are in really serious trouble and Iran is not our primary problem.  Israel needs to find another sugar daddy because we are about to be spent clean.

                          •  And Iran may be telling the complete truth. (0+ / 0-)

                            They may be just making reactors.  Great.  I have no problem with this, and in fact applaud it.  The world needs to collectively get over its phobia of atomic power.

                            But if that's the case.... what's the problem with letting the UN in to make sure all relevant treaties are being followed?

                          •  Nutcases in power in reaction to our nutcase. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            cotterperson, velvetdays

                            That is the problem.  Our undermining of the UN to the point where it is obvious to most of the world that we are attempting to mis-use the body for our own purposes regardless of who else in the world gets hurt.  You see the problem in Iran as with many of the problems internationally comes back to the US's bad behavior under the Bush regime over the past six years.  We used to be a stabilizing influence and apparently we really were just that because all evidence is pointing to the fact that when we don't play that role in the world a lot of weirdness really starts to gain momentum.

                          •  *coughs delicately* (0+ / 0-)

                            Actually Pakistan has been full of nutcases for much longer than Bush has been around, and will most likely be around long after he's out of office.  Not all of them are in the Pakistani government either.

                            Erm..... our undermining of the UN could be countered by supporting UN investigation in this matter.... and if you're concerned about bias in the investigation....

                            ...you do realize that both China and Russia are Security Council members, right?

                          •  Pakistan? That is a whole other can of worms. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            cotterperson, velvetdays

                            I'm sticking with Iran/Iraq for two reasons: 1. I am tired and 2. I was in a pretty good mood today about the possibility for hope and this diary and AIPAC brought that to a crashing end.

                            Of course I understand China and Russia are on the Security Council.  That's why the nuclear program in Iran is allowed to go forward.  No consensus can be created in part because of their national interests being important to them (who knew?) and in part because of BushCo's insistence on using a bludgeon at the UN rather than diplomacy.  There is no political will to allow us to see the insides of Iran because it is obvious to too many of the key players and the bit players I might add that we would mis-use the information.  We are no longer considered trustworthy and now most people know we aren't as all powerful as we once were.  We are in a dangerous position geo-politically speaking.  we don't have the military we did; we don't have the power of the purse; and we don't have the esteem and regard that we skated on when we were short on the first two in the past.

                            So what does Bush do to "fix" it?  He gives Pakistan nuclear weapons and threatens to invade Iran and picks fights with North Korea...  We are screwed.

                          •  He's a moron, among other things. (0+ / 0-)

                            And it's up to those of us on the left to fix what he's fucked up.  No argument there.

                            However, all Iran would have to do is say, 'Guess what?  Go ahead.  Come and look.  We got nuttin.'  And watch the wind get sucked right out of Chimpboy's sails.  Personally?  I'd love to see it.

                            Do I know that Iran is working on atomic weapons as well as/instead of atomic power?  No.  The fact that they're not willing to let the IAEA verify this makes me somewhat suspiscious tho.

                          •  Why do we all have to be subject to George W. (3+ / 0-)

                            Bush's inspections?  He spies on us - now wants to read our mail even - and we think it is okay.  It didn't do Saddam one bit of good to let the UN inspectors in so why should Iran?  I mean come on.  Stop thinking entirely about how you feel about it and think about how other countries perceive it.  It is an important distinction.

                          •  Bush isn't the IAEA. (0+ / 0-)

                            ...and considering how much of our debt the Chinese currently hold?  We're not going to do anything to piss them off.  Even Chimpboy isn't that stupid.

                            Well his handlers aren't, anyway.

                          •  We already have pissed the Chinese off. (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            miriam, cotterperson, velvetdays

                            They just told us to shove it too.  Bush and his handlers are still partying like it's 1999 and it isn't.

                          •  yes, & not to mention (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            cotterperson, Dormaphaea

                            Bush can only expand the war, expand the conflict- that is the only detectable "theme" of his Presidency- Distract from one emergency by engineering, ignoring or neglecting important matters of state business & lurching the public from one disaster to the next, while the multinationals swoop in for the contracts to clean up.

                            What a terrifying mess.  

                            Thanks for delving into some underlying causes as well- far too little thought is given to the invisible hands at work in the Iraq & Afghanistan conflicts, Russian & China of course being primary among those

                            I don't even think most of the prospective 08 field even is aware there ARE invisible players, let alone how to move forward

                            And you're right to say "madman," of course! You know things have gone way too far when even James Baker can barely restrain himself from rolling his eyes at w during a press conference... and that Baker, an exhumed ghoul from the Reagan era with dirt still showing under his fingernails now  recast as a hero- I fear not just for America & those in the path of events, but for the actual soul of America itself..

              •  The Lebanese might (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                cotterperson, Turquine

                see it differently. I'd say Israel bombing a country who did not attack it is something more than a "mistake" and is not "better" or in any way morally superior. Killing children last summer in Lebanon does not make friends among those of us whose government funded those bombs without asking our permission.  

                To God: Please stop talking to George Bush. Too much is being lost in translation.

                by miriam on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 08:57:09 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  But they sure as hell all think they are! n/t (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Canadian Reader
    •  How so much I long for... (0+ / 0-)
      a tiny, life-sustaining planet in a far away galaxy where I can get away from all this madness! No place on earth seems safe enough anymore. This group of insane "geniuses" is going to get us all killed.

      Today Democrats took control of Congress, it was the height of my joy over the last 12 years... tonight, I'm equally as downtrodden as I was euphoric earlier today.

  •  if we bomb (30+ / 0-)

    if we bomb Iran, our way of life is over, I don't know how more plainly you can say it.

    Retalitory strikes on our oil infrastructure, the closing of the striaghts = 300-$400 oil, more than likely a homeland wmd strike resulting in marshal law.  It's game over, check mate is we do indeed attack Iran.

    Wes knows it, as do many.

    mr republican, is that a flag in your pocket or are you just glad to see my son?

    by pissedpatriot on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 07:05:36 PM PST

    •  Shall we have WW3? (4+ / 0-)

      The Bush perspective: sure, let's do it.

      The Afghan/Iraq invasions are a desperate attempt to translate US superiority in military technology into continued domination of petro resources, as we did in the 20th century. But it isn't working.

      Russian influence grows in the former Soviet republics of central Asia. Chinese influence grows worldwide. India is on the rise. South America is breaking away. Our industrial base is disappearing. Our financial situation is dire.

      Since, within the Bush perspective, we are losing anyway, what more do we have to lose by attacking Iran? Within the Bush perspective, we might as well provoke WW3 while the US still has some degree of military superiority.

      •  In a few years... (7+ / 0-)

        ...we won't have the engineering talent to maintain superior military technology. I should know, I went to one of the best engineering schools out there and my defense industry employer is wasting my degree having me maintain cost reduction meeting minutes. In fact, almost none of our engineering staff is doing ANY research or design work at present.

        Additionally, we all know how well squeezing blood from your vendors is working out for Detroit.

        Soylent Green - the OTHER white meat.

        by bluewolverine on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 07:44:55 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  The US and Israel have an incestuous relationship (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cotterperson, Jeffrey Feldman, jen

        in terms of military superiority.

        The US gives money to Israel to develop military weapons that Israel then can sell to other countries.

        But in recent days there's been a little pressure building up. The US wants Israel to commit to the THADD system and Israel's balking. Not sure what it all means, but can you imagine what would happen if the US ever just said no to Israel after it's given them billions to develop the most technologically advanced weapons in the world?

        Here are links to two interesting articles. One about the current deal going on about weapons and the other about two Israeli spokespersons giving their views on if they need the United States to join them in attacking Iran.  

        Both are from Israel's papers, which, as Clark says, say a lot more than what our papers are reporting. For years, they've been full of hype and bluster and spin, about the need to wipe Iran off the map, but in my opinion it's taken a turn lately and the rhetoric is ratching toward an attack with Iran or getting the US to do so.

        Israel may opt for U.S.-made missile over own Arrow system

        http://www.haaretz.com/...

        Think tank: Israel could attack Iran's nuclear program alone
        http://www.haaretz.com/...

        •  From Haaretz above (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          RAZE
          "'Even if, at the end of the day, Israeli jets are going to carry out, or execute, this attack, it might be perceived - and rightly - as an understanding between the United States and Israel," Eiland said.'

          Indeed.  It's unrealistic for anyone to believe Israel would go-it-alone.  Absolutely unrealistic.  Imagine the response of the rest of the Middle East if Israel were to unilaterally bomb Iran.  Can you say Conflagration?  Apocalypse Now?  The response would be overwhelming.  And there's the catch.  Israel would call for American support, and be entitled to expect it after all the billions we've poured in there.  

          I ask again, since I've not ever received an answer, why exactly is it in America's interests to unconditionally support Israel to the tune of billions of taxpayer dollars?  I think it's past time for Americans to discuss/question this, especially given the influence of AIPAC on our government.

          To God: Please stop talking to George Bush. Too much is being lost in translation.

          by miriam on Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 09:26:01 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Pat Robertson was talking to AIPAC? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      inclusiveheart
      Who knew?
  •  This may be a very important moment, one (34+ / 0-)

    that will either sink Clark or change America's conversation about Israel (and still probably sink Clark).  If he's correct about the influence of monied, far-right Zionist opinion in this country, then he has no choice but to call it out, because they won't forget.

    Needless to say, the stakes are enormous.  American deserves at least the same, much more rational conversation about Israel's Palestinian policies that is occurring in Israel itself right now (and in the Territories, too).  Clark would be a hero if he could lay out a more humane, less dangerous map for a just peace in the Middle East.

    [Parenthetically, I wonder if Jimmy Carter has his ear.]  

    "No man should have to clean up after another man's dog." --President Gerald R. Ford

    by Mogolori on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 07:07:15 PM PST

  •  Diplomacy does not equal appeasment (21+ / 0-)

    Clark is a seasoned diplomat. Had to be as Supreme Allied Commander of NATO. He knows this. Bush doesn't. Both parties do not have to agree when they sit down to talk. Or even when they adjourn. Only the Koo-aid drinking wingnuts will think Bush is a pussy for talking to Iran. What's that, 11% of the electorate?

    Newest GOP slogan: Keeping Voter Turnout Low So That the Corporate Criminal's Grandchildren Never Have to Work.

    by bobinson on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 07:12:08 PM PST

  •  I was thinking (14+ / 0-)

    the same thing about Carter.

    Even tough I bet that 80% of America would back a platform with Clark's ideas, the big money dems would never go for it. Clark would be putting his political career on the line with this one...

  •  but if he slipped in as VP... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rolet, Natalie
  •  tonight on the history channel (12+ / 0-)

    there's a show called Iran, the next Iraq. I think it's on at 11pm est. I'll be watching to see the tone of the show. It'll tell you something about whether or not we're being "prepped" for some kind of action. Before the invasion of Iraq, the history channel was kind of a belwether for intervention as they were full of the most egregious of bushies lies.

    A learning experience is one of those things that says, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' Douglas Adams

    by dougymi on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 07:19:29 PM PST

    •  Looks like a hit piece... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dougymi

      ...based on the first five minutes.

      Soylent Green - the OTHER white meat.

      by bluewolverine on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 08:00:43 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  agreed... hope it isn't an omen. n/t (0+ / 0-)

        A learning experience is one of those things that says, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' Douglas Adams

        by dougymi on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 08:36:48 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Now Robocop... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          dougymi

          ...is on the History Channel lecturing us about the Persian Empire.

          This show might actually be decent.

          Soylent Green - the OTHER white meat.

          by bluewolverine on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 08:58:59 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  it was good as far as the Persian empire goes (0+ / 0-)

            but it was over the top talking about how all Iran wants to go back to domination of the Persian Gulf region. It was inflammatory as far as it's opinions of the nuclear ambitions of the current regime are concerned.  I was disappointed but not surprised. I didn't care for the program. It was reminiscent of the ones about Iraq prior to the invasion.

            A learning experience is one of those things that says, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' Douglas Adams

            by dougymi on Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 11:10:51 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  This is troubling (34+ / 0-)

    when a four star General says this should be the top priority.  If he is saying he is worried, it means exactly that.  Especially, if his concerns are diverted from the "surge".

    If we go to war with Iran, their will definitely be sacrifice and it won't be pretty.

    "Come, come, my conservative friend, wipe the dew off your spectacles, and see the world is moving." Elizabeth Cady Stanton

    by txlosthorn on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 07:20:09 PM PST

  •  AIPAC represents Likud & NeoCons; not Israel/Jews (44+ / 0-)

    Clark is right and this is not antisemitism, it is anti-AIPACism

    Best piece on AIPAC recently is here, June 8, 2006 NY Review of Books by Michael Massing:
    http://www.nybooks.com/...

    Key point is that AIPAC is controlled by a bunch of right wing (on the right wing of the neocons) partisan Republicans with ties to Netanyahu and right wing of the Likud party in Israel.

    They do not represent American Jewery (overwhelmingly democrat, in favor of two state solution, etc.).

    They do not even represent Israel... they have opposed every move to peace made by Labor party when they have been in charge (Barak, Rabin)... opposed Oslo, opposed talks with Syria, opposed Camp David, etc.

    Unfortunately the overwhelming majority of American Jews who disagree with AIPAC on specifics have not successfully counter-organized.

  •  Thanks much for this diary, (15+ / 0-)

    I posted links to this in several diaries, but did not have the time to write a diary.  I feel just like you do.  Bush is ratcheting up his Caligula agenda.

    And if Wes Clark is horrified, so am I - as he predicted and warned about invading Iraq, and predicted the potential consequences (which have all proven accurate), since 2002. If he's as worried as it sounds, I'm truly terrified right now. It looks like the new Democratic Leadership change in both houses, will not hinder this madman from wiping out hundreds of thousands of people, while spreading new wars across the globe.

    Truly scary.  I'm so worried about my two sons (26 and 28), their future and the future of my yet unborn grandchildren.....as well of all of nature, and our mother earth.  Here is ONE man who can (and possibly will) do all of us in._

    "WE are the leaders we are waiting for" Hopi Elders

    by Gabriele Droz on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 07:36:43 PM PST

  •  Bogged down in one war, start another one? (7+ / 0-)

    I think the last time that happened was Operation Barbarossa, 1941. Didn't turn out too well for the invading nation.

  •  It is possible (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dufffbeer, vcmvo2, bluewolverine, jhritz

    but boy I'm getting skeptical.  I had read for more than 2 years now that war with Iran was imminent.

    I'm not against action against Iran, the leader of that country is evil, W and Ahmadinejihad are the Stalin and Hitler of this era.  If Hillary Clinton or Edwards will do it, that is a positive in my opinion for their candidacy in my mind.  I am against W taking any action against Iran, because he is incompetant, he has no idea of what needs to be done or how to do it, but rather plans on implementing big oil's agenda.  It is the difference between a Stalin and an FDR. The threat is not immediate, but it needs to be dealt with.  But for now, it is better to do little considering the guy in the White House.  

    Much of the rest of this thread is simply anti-Isreali crap.

    •  so I guess we could assume (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      witchamakallit

      you wouldn't give Carter's new book a decent review?

      •  haven't read the book (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Swordsmith, vcmvo2

        so I can't judge it and unlike wingnuts who haven't read the book, I won't.
        I respect Carter a lot, so I'm not going to trash him, even if I don't agree with him.

      •  Here's a review (0+ / 0-)

        of Carter's book.

        •  and here's some unbiased ones... (0+ / 0-)

          http://www.amazon.com/...

          This review from SF Chronicle make it easy.

          Israel maintains two separate road networks in the West Bank: one for the exclusive use of Jewish settlers, and one for Palestinian natives. Is that not apartheid?

          Palestinians are not allowed to drive their own cars in much of the West Bank; their public transportation is frequently interrupted or blocked altogether by a grid of Israeli army checkpoints -- but Jewish settlers come and go freely in their own cars, without even pausing at the roadblocks that hold up the natives. Is that not apartheid?

          A system of closures and curfews has strangled the Palestinian economy in the West Bank -- but none of its provisions apply to the Jewish settlements there. Is that not apartheid?

          Whole sectors of the West Bank, classified as "closed military areas" by the Israeli army, are off limits to Palestinians, including Palestinians who own land there -- but foreigners to whom Israel's Law of Return applies (that is, anyone Jewish, from anywhere in the world) can access them without hindrance. Is that not apartheid?

          http://www.sfgate.com/...

          any questions?

          •  Full of shit, as usual -that was a reader comment (0+ / 0-)

            not a review.

            Here's the SF Chron's  review:

            Jimmy Carter's Legacy of Failure

            Excerpts:

            There are those who have called Carter's entire book into question, including friend and colleague Dr. Kenneth W. Stein. A well-known Middle East scholar, and until recently a fellow of Emory University's Carter Center, Stein resigned his position because of strenuous objections to the content of Carter's book. In an e-mail message regarding his resignation, Stein described the book as "replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions, and simply invented segments."

            The copied materials involve two maps from former U.S. Middle East envoy Dennis Ross' book "The Missing Peace." In an appearance on Fox News, Ross confirmed that the maps originated with his book, and he objected not only to the lack of attribution but also to Carter's inaccurate presentation of the historical facts involved.

            And this:

            Intimations of Anti-Semitism

            Carter's contention in the book, and one that he recently discussed with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, is that a "minority of Israelis have refused to swap land for peace." This is laughable, considering the repeated examples of Israeli governments doing just that. Successive administrations, whether under Ehud Barak, Benjamin Netanyahu, Ariel Sharon or now Ehud Olmert (who's practically falling all over himself to give away Israeli land), have offered or given up territory, only to be met with increased aggression. Recent examples include the ongoing violence in Gaza following Israel's disengagement plan and the war in Lebanon six long years after Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon.

            One has to wonder if Carter's single-minded obsession with Israel as the root of the problems in the world -- not to mention the stubbornly one-sided view of the Middle East conflict to which he has a history of subscribing -- has any anti-Semitic underpinnings. Such is the suspicion among many of Carter's harshest critics.

            Next time you present something as a review -- use the review, not some open forum submission.

            eom

            •  A liberal turned conservative? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Florida Democrat

              You presented an opinion from Stillwell - liberal turned conservative - and a resignation letter from Stein. What's next? A review from the torture apologist?

              Uh, yeah...okay then...

              The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world She didn't exist.

              by callmecassandra on Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 07:31:31 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I presented the review from the SF Chronicle (0+ / 0-)

                not exactly a conservative paper, in response to a sneaky posting by someone presented an open forum letter to the editor as the SF Chronicle's official review.

                If you don't agree with the many differents references, not just the two you picked out, in the review, that's your choice (and bias where Stein is concerned, as he is respected by everyone of consequence).

                It doesn't change the fact that it was the Chronicle's actual review, as opposed to the letter to the editor that was misrepresented on the comment I was replying to.

                So, you're mistaken.

                eom.

                •  Hmmm... (0+ / 0-)

                  I'd expect a liberal paper to publish differences of opinion. But Stillwell? To each his own...

                  and bias where Stein is concerned, as he is respected by everyone of consequence

                  Stein is a nobody. Who the hell knew anything about him before his RESIGNATION LETTER? A resignation letter? Seriously? Did he "formalize" and flesh out his criticism elsewhere and I missed it?

                  Have you even read the book? Are you going to? How do you accept someone else's criticism of the book as valid or legitimate when you haven't even read it yourself?

                  The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world She didn't exist.

                  by callmecassandra on Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 01:20:03 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Stein is a WHAT??? (0+ / 0-)

                    You wrote:

                    Stein is a nobody. Who the hell knew anything about him before his RESIGNATION LETTER? A resignation letter? Seriously? Did he "formalize" and flesh out his criticism elsewhere and I missed it?

                    Stein, for your information, was the first executive Director of the CARTER CENTER (for 10 years).  He was involved with implementing Habitat for Humanity.

                    He also was Carter's co-author on one of his previous books on the Middle East, was a campaign official for him and had been Carter's advisor on the Middle East for 23 years.

                    It was his position as the current Middle East fellow (specialist) for the Carter Center that he resigned.

                    In addition, he is (still is) the Emory University Professor of Middle East Studies and was the "third person in the room" who actually negotiated the Camp David accords for Carter.

                    Is it that didn't know?  Of that you don't take him seriously because he's Jewish?

                    Some nobody.

                    eom

                    •  heh (0+ / 0-)

                      Is it that didn't know?  Of that you don't take him seriously because he's Jewish?

                      Are you about to accuse me of bigotry? I rather you just say it and prove to everybody that you are indeed a fool. Eh, nevermind. They already know...

                      Stein is nobody. Stein vs. Carter, Stein vs. Tutu, Stein vs. Mandela. Hell, Stein vs. Dershowitz. Yep, nobody. Iow, he has no recognition like the others. Popped up outta the blue and he's your hero because he's speaking your 'language'. But that's fine. Good for you.

                      You know, if Dershowitz wasn't a torture apologist, I just might take his criticisms of Carter's book a bit more seriously. Just letting you know...

                      Hey, are you gonna answer this direct question:

                      Have you even read the book?

                      Thanks ever so much...

                      The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world She didn't exist.

                      by callmecassandra on Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 02:02:08 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  My experience with your position is that (0+ / 0-)

                        you are.

                        eom.

                        •  oh, so you don't answer direct questions... (0+ / 0-)

                          I have to remember that the next time you lie...well, that won't be long now will it?

                          5...4...3...2....

                          The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world She didn't exist.

                          by callmecassandra on Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 02:40:16 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I don't dignify (0+ / 0-)

                            your questions when you impugn (lie about) someone like Ken Stein.

                            eom

                          •  oh please (0+ / 0-)

                            you never intended to answer anyway because then your 'poition' on carter's book would be all the more weakened. not that it isn't weak already...

                            The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world She didn't exist.

                            by callmecassandra on Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 04:04:04 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  "position" (0+ / 0-)

                            The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world She didn't exist.

                            by callmecassandra on Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 04:21:09 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  This is the only answer (0+ / 0-)

                            You impugned Ken Stein without even knowing who he was.

                            eom

                          •  You sound petulant. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Florida Democrat

                            Nobody knew who he was. Does he have recognition like the others I've listed, even Dershowitz? Compared to those names, he is a nobody.

                            And I ain't the only one who thinks so:

                            A wag once said that there is no Pravda (Truth) in Izvestia (News) and no Izvestia in Pravda. The same can be said of our Pravda (The New York Times) and Izvestia (The Washington Post). Today both party organs ran feature stories trashing Carter using Kenneth Stein's resignation from the Carter Center as the hook. (I was sitting in the airport when this earth-shattering story came on CNN.) But like John Galt, many people must have wondered, Who (the hell) is Kenneth Stein? Stein wrote exactly one scholarly book on the Israel-Palestine conflict more than two decades ago (The Land Question in Palestine, 1984). Even in his heyday, Stein was a nonentity.

                            Not that Norm has the final word and all, but people recognize Carter, Tutu, Mandela and Dershowitz. Not Stein.

                            Anyway,

                            Have you even read the book?

                            Like I said, you never had any intention of answering.

                            The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world She didn't exist.

                            by callmecassandra on Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 07:34:47 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

            •  That is not a review (0+ / 0-)

              it's a hatchet-job on the author.

              •  It was the Chronicle's review (0+ / 0-)

                That was the issue.  It was not a letter to the editor, nor was it an open forum submission.  It was the review that the Chronicle offered.

                You can agree with it or not, but the issue with the previous poster was about what was or was not a review.

                eom

            •  Oh good comeback... (0+ / 0-)

              It must not be a "review" if it doesn't agree with yours.

              How lame are you, honestly? Do you really think you'll convince Daily Kos readers that Carter's book was bad, or even got bad reviews in general?

              Stop waisting your time and get a fucking life!

    •  Ok, bombing someone is ok (4+ / 0-)

      as long as it's not Bush doing it?
      Makes sense to me. ~snark~

      The crap, on the other hand, is the continual accusations that any postings that don't slobber over Israel governmental policy are "anti-Israel" or "anti-semitec".

      "Whoever lives for the sake of combating an enemy has an interest in the enemy's staying alive." Friedrich Nietzsche

      by witchamakallit on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 07:51:56 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I am sick and tired (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        hfjai, vcmvo2, zemblan, jhritz

        of the blatantly anti-Semetic posts on this site, and the biased "Israel is always wrong" attitude on this site.  

        Israel is much much more humane than are these Islamic theocratic terrorists, who restrict people's lives, and treat women like shit.  I would much rather live in Israel than in Iran or Saudi Arabia,

        Honestly, I am diappointed that progressives who correctly condemn Christian fundamentalists as we should do not hold the Islamic fundamentalists with the equal sort of disdain.

        •  That's one way to make your point (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          anna, cotterperson, jockyoung

          Israel is much much more humane than are these Islamic theocratic terrorists, who restrict people's lives, and treat women like shit.  I would much rather live in Israel than in Iran or Saudi Arabia,

          Yes, in the free world we do not measure things by saying that we are better than the Islamic theocratic terrorists. Almost anyone is better than the Islamic theocratic terrorists.

          "I have a dream" King Jr.

          "I have a book deal" Perves Musharraf

          by allmost liberal european on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 08:04:08 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I haven't seen any anti-Semetic posts here (11+ / 0-)

          though I have seen several that think that there is a better way for Israel to make it's case than by being hyper-aggressive.

          Clark expects Israel to look out for it's interests and doesn't have a problem with them defending themselves.  Indiscriminate bombing is not 'defense'.

          •  You haven't see them (0+ / 0-)

            because they get hidden.

            If you can see hidden posts, check them out on this diary.

            Look for the ID: Humble Aspirant.

            Then tell me you haven't seen anti-Semitism on Kos.

            I also cut and pasted some of his gems here.

            There are blatant anti-Semites like that.  Another on a diary that tried to say Jews didn't die in gas chambers because the gas wasn't strong enough (I refrained from suggesting he try it himself...).

            There are also those blame all the world's ills on Israel, while excusing everything anyone else does (Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas...) because they are against Israel.

            That's a double standard.

            Which, when conflated (blame is assigned) to all Jews, is also anti-Semitism.  

            It's just not as obvious as the above examples.

            eom

        •  You sounds very like Bush. (5+ / 0-)

          I can love my country but hate my President.

          Why can't we feel like that about Israel.

          Of course we back them but personally I like the policies of Menachem Began better than the group in power right now.

          They believe in unfettered military action and it has NOT made them safer.

          "This is not a time for a candidate who will offend no one; it is time for a candidate who takes clear stands and kicks ass."....Molly Ivins

          by pelican on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 08:11:16 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I'm Jewish and the fact that Bibi is lobbying for (23+ / 0-)

          military action makes me fear for the safety of the planet. He is very slick, he's MIT educated and knows all the marks to hit, all the Americanisms.

          He's a real Israeli cowboy that believes in cowboy diplomacy, just like Ronnie Raygun and the moron we have sitting on the red button, right now.

          No, there's no 'anti-semitism' required, because Bibi is quite frnakly nuts .. he is out of his freeking mind, and the Israelis got sick of his crazed fantasies. Israelis want to live, not become radioactive ash.

          Bibi is a very very dangerous man.

          Your are aware that Wes Clark comes from a family of rabbis, I hope, I believe Kohanim, at that. Why don't read what Clark has to say, and stop with remarks about 'anti-semitism', unless you care to be more specific.  

          Keep it Lit.
          Mike Malloy is on the Quake, KPHX and on Nova M Radio

          by shpilk on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 08:32:32 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  My comments of anti-Israel (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            vcmvo2, jhritz

            aren't toward Wes Clark.  It is towards a good number of Kossacks who think that Israel is always wrong, at all times, and don't see the Islamic theocrats as the evil that they are.

            I don't believe Edwards and Clinton are dumb enough to fall for whatever Bibi wants, who is truly nuts.  But nor are they dumb enough to fall for all the Iran apologists either.

            W is dumb enough to fall for Bibi's (as well as big oil's) narrow agenda, which is why I oppose anything provided that he is still in power.

            •  I don't see those types of comments here (6+ / 0-)

              Maybe I missed something. The way you are talking, it's as if every other post slammed Jews.

              I don't see it, and quite frankly while I too have gotten a little steamed at what I think is unfair and biased reporting and interpretations of news items, I rarely can remember ever seeing outright 'anti-semitism' hatred of Jewish people or the religion here. The few times I have seen it, it has been nearly immediately troll rated into oblivion.

              I am critical of Likud policies, that have aggravated unnecessarily a situation that should have been on the road to peace long ago.

              I am critical of some in Kadima who continue as Likud-light and most importantly Olmert and his rank incompetence. It's time for Olmert to go, and to be replaced with someone who knows what the hell they are doing. That is NOT Bibi Netanyahu.

              Keep it Lit.
              Mike Malloy is on the Quake, KPHX and on Nova M Radio

              by shpilk on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 08:49:47 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I avoid the Israel threads (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                jhritz

                for this reason, it is usually a bunch of people ganging up on Israel.

                Here are some examples on this thread, which is relatively tame.
                But they are nothing but the anti-Israel Ahmadinejihad-apologizing junk that I'm sick of seeing on this site, quite frankly.

                people support Israel because they are told to. I still have not heard a good reason for us to support Israel above and beyond any other democracy. I fail to see their strategic importance in military or finacial US self interest.

                As far as I can tell, he just wants to get to the bottom of the issue.  The more I hear of this "Holocaust Denial" stuff, the more it seems to me to be a means of drumming up further hatred and fear of Iran, perhaps specifically to manufacture consent for this bombing thing.  Let the guy have his *@!(#^* conference.

                •  Yup, I see it .. you are correct in that part (0+ / 0-)

                  but it's tame compared to some of the other crap I've seen in the past. The first post isn't even remotely anything, the 2nd .. whatever, it's fluff talk signifying little.

                  You are overreaching.
                  It doesn't help.

                  Keep it Lit.
                  Mike Malloy is on the Quake, KPHX and on Nova M Radio

                  by shpilk on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 09:34:16 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  I will agree with on this part (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  cotterperson, vcmvo2

                  there is very little of substance here, and this is my last post. Save your anger and disappointment for where it matters.

                  This whole diary and the thread is a bunch of nothing, anyway; it's based upon a rumor, and people's preconceived notions and litmus tests.

                  I'm done in this one .. outta here!  

                  Keep it Lit.
                  Mike Malloy is on the Quake, KPHX and on Nova M Radio

                  by shpilk on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 09:36:49 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

          •  Bill Clinton was quoted (0+ / 0-)

            as saying "he couldn't do business with Netahayu" because PM N. wouldn't keep his word....he should be persona non grata as far as the USA is concerned

          •  ref Iraq (0+ / 0-)

            Do you know Netanyahu's current stance on escalation in Iraq?

            Sorry if I missed comments on this but it is getting to be a long thread.

        •  While You Call People On This Site Blatantly (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Hornito, fightcentristbias, Turquine

          anti-Semetic, you seem to have no problem lumping everyone in Iran as Islamic theocratic terrorists who restrict people's lives and treat women like shit and therefore, need to be bombed by America. You want us to bomb them but you just want to wait until someone more competent does the bombing. Quite frankly, I hold the opinion that America has the right to bomb a country that has not attacked us in disdain.

    •  Evildoers! (13+ / 0-)

      You're either with us or we'll bomb you back to the stone age! jesustapdancingshrist!!!

      Have you any idea how many more people will hate us? Not to mention becoming an international pariah.

      In the words of Wes Clark....We will only be safer in this world when we make more friends than enemies.

      "This is not a time for a candidate who will offend no one; it is time for a candidate who takes clear stands and kicks ass."....Molly Ivins

      by pelican on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 07:53:11 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Ok (0+ / 0-)

        Under your logic, the Nazis should have been tolerated.  

        Have you any idea how many more people will hate us? Not to mention becoming an international pariah.

        And this is why I oppose anything with W right now, he will fuck things up, and make the world hate us more.  I think John Edwards or Hillary Clinton can get the world together to deal with Iran.

        •  The press from Israel expects HC to go along (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          pelican

          with the 'bomb Iran" scenario.  Edwards has already said that it's okay.

          How is that 'getting the world together".

          •  I have heard "rumors" about the attacks on Iran (0+ / 0-)

            for almost 3 years now.  I'm starting to ignore them now, they seem like just rumors.  
            Secondly Edwards has not said that they are ok, he has simply said that military action should remain as a possible option.  I strongly agree with that, it should be the last option, but an option.

            For W, it is the first option, for Edwards or HRC it is the last.  That is the difference.  They will try to bring the world together on this, and can do so in a manner that the threat of Iran can be dealt with.  The Democratic President would look at all the facts and work to convince our allies, instead of the bomb first approach.

            I'm rather disappointed with Kossacks who think that it is fine and dandy if Iran gets nuclear weapons.  That is not an acceptable position in my mind.  
            I am also diappointed that progressives who correctly condemn Christian fundamentalists as we should do not hold the Islamic fundamentalists with the equal sort of disdain.
            Israel is much much more humane than are these Islamic theocratic terrorists, who restrict people's lives, and treat women like shit.  I would much rather live in Israel than in Iran or Saudi Arabia,

        •  Way to go.... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Hornito, Turquine

          Didn't take you long to invoke Godwin's Law.

          Please read this sentence s-l-o-w-l-y.

          Iran is nowhere close to being comparable to 'Nazis' or Nazi Germany.

          Give me a freakin' break.

          The Grasshopper Lies Heavy

          by FrankFrink on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 08:17:26 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  IhateBush, sorry. My snark-o-meter went wonky (0+ / 0-)

            My apologies. Please ignore my previous comment.

            The Grasshopper Lies Heavy

            by FrankFrink on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 08:20:11 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Well (0+ / 0-)

            Let's see what Iran has tried already:

            Consideration a law that would force non-Muslims to identify themselves as Jews, Christians, etc.  No the Nazis didn't do that, did they.  It was never passed into law, but the fact it was seriously considered, hmm.
            Repeated denial of the Holocaust, including the conference of Holocauset denials including as Iran called him, "American scholar" David Duke.

            Calling Isreal to be wiped off the map.

            The Nazis didn't do the Holocaust either in their first couple of years either.

            The only good news that I saw was that Ahmadenejihad's allies were defeated in local elections.  that shows that the Iranian people are certainly don't care for this "elected" thug in power.
             

            •  You've fallen for the propaganda (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Hornito, fightcentristbias, MO Blue

              Complete utter rubbish post.

              This was a false, planted story.

              Consideration a law that would force non-Muslims to identify themselves as Jews, Christians, etc.

              Complete fabrication. Urban legend.

              Also another compete fabrication. Not even Ahmedijahn has said this let alone 'Iran'.

              Calling Isreal to be wiped off the map.

              Read Juan Cole for a debunking of that one.
              Do you actually know any Iranians? Appears not,

              They (Iranians) aren't much different that you (I'm assuming you are American) or me (I'm Canadian). All three countries are controlled by people who only have the support of between 25 and 30 per cent of the populace.

              While you're at it,
              read comments #146 and 147 here

              The Grasshopper Lies Heavy

              by FrankFrink on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 08:50:37 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Funny, Iran has the largest Jewish population (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Florida Democrat

              of anywhere in the ME, outside Israel, and nothing is happening to them. They are not being attacked, or harmed in any way.

              They could move to Israel if they wanted, but don't. Why? There are hundreds of thousands of them. Is Israel going to bomb them too?

              -7.00/-4.77 "Public campaign financing, media reform, and ballot integrity, are all necessary ingredients for a healthy democracy!"

              by Hornito on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 11:20:37 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Nothing is happening? (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                IhateBush, zemblan

                How many do you know?

                The ones I know can't wait to get out.

                Talk from personal experience or stfu.

                eom

                •  Bullshit... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Hornito

                  The fact that so many of them come and visit Israel or come and go back is well documented. And there's a strong sense of pride that makes the rest want to stay.

                  Your personal experience with people you know (conveniently unprovable) can also be highly biased. That's why we call it "hearsay." It does not make you any kind of an expert by any stretch of the imagination.

                  http://news.bbc.co.uk/...

                  ...Jews live in Iran and most are determined to remain no matter what the pressures - as proud of their Iranian culture as of their Jewish roots.

                  It is dawn in the Yusufabad synagogue in Tehran and Iranian Jews bring out the Torah and read the ancient text before making their way to work.

                  It is not a sight you would expect in a revolutionary Islamic state, but there are synagogues dotted all over Iran where Jews discreetly practise their religion.

                  "Because of our long history here we are tolerated," says Jewish community leader Unees Hammami, who organised the prayers.

                  He says the father of Iran's revolution, Imam Khomeini, recognised Jews as a religious minority that should be protected.

                  As a result Jews have one representative in the Iranian parliament.

                  "Imam Khomeini made a distinction between Jews and Zionists and he supported us," says Mr Hammami.

                  here's another source.

                  http://hotzone.yahoo.com/...

                  Now please provide me some links that say anything remotely like "Iranian Jews can't wait to get out."

                  Do it, or STFU.

                  •  We've had this argument (1+ / 1-)
                    Recommended by:
                    IhateBush
                    Hidden by:
                    Florida Democrat

                    before, many times and you're the one who is full of shit. You just follow me around, thread to thread, looking for a fight, as usual.

                    All right, here you go:

                    RELIGIOUS MINORITIES – THE JEWISH COMMUNITY

                    Since 1999, the Secretary of State has designated Iran as a "Country of Particular Concern" under the International Religious Freedom Act due to its particularly severe violations of religious freedom.

                    The Constitution of the IRI declares the official religion of Iran to be Islam and all laws and regulations must be consistent with the official interpretation of Islamic Law (Shairi’a).

                    The population of more than 69 million is 99% Muslim (of which approximately 89% are Shi’a and 10% are Sunni). Bahai’s, Jews, Christians, Mandeans and Zoroastrians combined constitute less than 1% of the population.

                    The State Department’s International Religious Freedom Report 2004 (the "Religious Freedom Report") states that the government of the IRI "restricts freedom of religion." Members of all religious minorities have experienced imprisonment, harassment, intimidation and discrimination based on their religious beliefs. The Religious Freedom Report continues to say that "Government actions created a threatening atmosphere for some religious minorities, especially Baha’is, Jews, and evangelical Christians."

                    http://amir.irani-tehrani.com/...

                    Just because they hate Israel, like you, is no reason to be an apologist for things like this:

                    Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, in which he told youthful Basijis (members of a volunteer militia formed to enforce strict Islamic codes) preparing to join suicide missions that "non-Muslims are sinful animals who roam the earth and engage in corruption." Jannati, who is secretary general of the powerful Guardian Council, is known to be a mentor and close advisor to President Ahmadinejad.

                    Theoretically, under Islam, religious minorities (such as Jews, Christians and Zorastrians) are "protected", and allowed to live in peace and security, although they are subjected to certain "Minority taxes", known as "Jaziyeh" and "Kharadj".

                    In practice however, many limitations are imposed on the way in which they conduct their day to day lives, including aspects such as employment, culture, education, social behavior, religious practices, and in some areas even restrictions on walking in the streets on rainy days, or the height of their houses compared to those of their Muslim neighbors. The Religious Freedom Report states that "non-Muslim owners of grocery shops are required to indicate their religious affiliation on the front of their shops."

                    Or is that you think non-Muslims should be treated that way?

                    I'll pre-empt your obvious reply:  Yes, the link is compiled by the largest Iranian Jewish community that has managed to get out of Iran.  They do not hate Iran.  They fear the regime.  They have relatives there.  The link lists report after report after report of the police state Iran has become.

                    But, of course, since the site is run by Iranian Jews, you'll just discount it in favor of some yahoo  link....

                    That doesn't make it any less accurate.  

                    And, btw, I wasn't replying to you.

                    eom.

                    •  Get lost... (0+ / 0-)

                      How fucking egotistical are you? I'm following you around, like I was here for two years waiting for your sorry ass to join Kos? Get real...

                      Yes, we've had this conversation you've left frustrated when you couldn't pull off the bullshit lies your ignorant friends probably swallow on daily basis. You belittle others pretending your some kind of expert (I have friends...) but you can't take it when clear evidence proves you wrong directly.

                      Just because you accuse me (and anyone you don't like) of harrandous things like "being apologists" doesn't make it so. You understand nothing of logic, even less of rhetorical theory. Talking you is a complete waste of time, but I'm glad to expose your BS for others who may be reading.

                      At the end, - just as I predicted - you could not provide the evidence of "Jews can't wait to leave Iran."

                      And of course, you won't take your own advice and STFU. Instead you try to make this about living conditions on Iranian Jews, as if I had claimed it was some kind of paradise.

                      Just another clear piece of evidence of your bullshit hypocrisy. Anyone reading the thread is clear on that.

                      •  Anyone reading thread should be clear (0+ / 0-)

                        on the fact that you're an apologist for Iran.

                        I do not advocate attacking Iran.  In fact, I think would be a terrible mistake.

                        That doesn't mean I close my eyes to the kind of regime they have there.

                        Like you do.

                        So, here's the obvious answer to your abusive post.

                        If you like Iran so much, why don't you move there?

                        Report back to us what it's like to live there.

                        Because, until you do, I'll rely on my friends who have lived there and who still have family there.

                        They don't share your support for the regime.

                        eom

                  •  Thanks. Your link shows that many Jews have left (0+ / 0-)

                    "Iran also has a Jewish minority, which at its peak numbered about 80,000. Shortly after the Islamic Revolution, many immigrated to the U.S. and some to
                    Israel, leaving a community of about 25,000 today."

                    It's rarely pleasant to emigrate.  I sort of doubt that all of those 55,000 Jewish emigrants left happily.

              •  Wrong. There may be about 30,000 Jews in Iran. (0+ / 0-)

                http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/...

                Their families have been there for many years, and they are apparently not harrassed at the present time.

                Are you familiar with the concept of tokenism, and how small numbers of outsiders may be tolerated at one time and despised at another?

                Rome, for example, has had a small Jewish enclave for thousands of years.  Most of the time, they were not harmed.  Most of the time.

              •  Just as an historical aside - (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Dormaphaea

                The Persian Empire (what is modern day Iran) is the only known empire to have freed Jewish slaves - 40,000 of them - when conquering a kingdom.  I think it was Cyrus the Great.

                Also - there is a difference between being a Muslim and being Iranian - who are not Arabs, by the way, but Iranian/Persian and very proud of that, and who speak Farsi not Arabic.

                The upshot being - all middle eastern countries are not the same, just as being Jewish is not the same as being Israeli, nor being an American is the same as being a rightwing Christian.

    •  If attacking Iran is so fucking necessary, (10+ / 0-)

      let the U.N. and Nato do it. I'm tired of paying for the rest of the world to sit back eat cheese and drink wine. Every two bit loud mouth in the world is not a serious threat to the U.S. WE can bomb any country into oblivion in ten minutes if we had to. We don't need to attack Iran for any other reason than defense contracts. This is all bullshit!

      "I count him braver who overcomes his desires than him who conquers his enemies; for the hardest victory is over self." --Aristotle

      by java4every1 on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 07:55:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I am really very tired of this: (31+ / 0-)

      "Much of the rest of this thread is simply anti-Isreali crap."

      Why aren't Americans allowed to question our country's policies when it comes to Israel?  Every other nation on the globe is fair game, and every one of them has been criticized at some point by someone, but the moment Israel is even mentioned the rapid response team arrives with cries of anti-semitism.

      Israel cannot expect Americans to be uncritical of its policies when 3 billion dollars a year of our taxpayer money is being sent there.  How are American interests being served by this slavish, unquestioning support?  Arguably, our funding of Israel is acting against our interests.  We should have said long ago that either Israel cooperates in implementing an equitable two-state solution with the Palestinians or we will withdraw any more financial or diplomatic support.  Period.    

      To God: Please stop talking to George Bush. Too much is being lost in translation.

      by miriam on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 08:03:01 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Apparently you are not alone... (6+ / 0-)

        in feeling this way:

        ...The propaganda machine has an effective method for warding off reality. Zionist propagandists meet every critic of Israeli policy, from Human Rights Watch to Jimmy Carter with the accusation of participation in a world-wide anti-semitic conspiracy. Therefore, regardless of what the critic says, the very fact of his or her criticism becomes evidence for the Zionist cause. For social psychologists, it may suggest that propaganda techniques are based in paranoid defenses.
        Even thinking about this debate is tiring.

        "I do not like broccoli." - George H. W. Bush

        by Son of Broccoli on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 08:32:14 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I'm sure many in Israel (0+ / 0-)

        are critical of its policies too.

    •  Wes on bombing Iran..... (8+ / 0-)

      Here's what he said while campaigning for Jon Tester in Montana. I heard it first hand.  Paraphrasing of course:

      You know what it's like to go to the bar after a football game....well....if Montana's anything like Arkansas....you'll always find someone who wants to fight.  That's what the Muslim world will be like.  If we bomb Iran we can count on millions (or is it billions) of Muslims around the world to be more than happy to take us up on in that fight.

      Think about that.

      He said the ramifications of bombing Iran are immense.  It will change the world and this country and all of our lives as we know it.  He was dead serious.  

      What Wes has said for the past 3 or some odd years is "TALK TO IRAN".

      Obviously I disagree that if Hillary and Edwards would do it....it would be a positive.  I doubt they understand the ramifications anymore than they did their IWR vote.  Political ambitions.

    •  Your comment shows your ignorance.... (0+ / 0-)

      and your hypocrisy. You sound like you would fit in fine with AIPAC and Bibi...

      -7.00/-4.77 "Public campaign financing, media reform, and ballot integrity, are all necessary ingredients for a healthy democracy!"

      by Hornito on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 11:13:55 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  half a dozen letters in the last three months (0+ / 0-)

     I've written half a dozen letters to my Senators in the last three months on this topic. Iran might just need a beat down, but George Bush's judgement in this area is highly suspect.

    "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise" - U.S. Constitution author and fourth President James Madison

    by Iowa Boy on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 07:54:20 PM PST

    •  ? (11+ / 0-)

      Iran might just need a beat down

      For what? Invading foreign countries?
      One execution video wasn't enough?

      "I have a dream" King Jr.

      "I have a book deal" Perves Musharraf

      by allmost liberal european on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 07:56:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  what you don't know (0+ / 0-)

        I fully accept that there are things I don't know of happening in this world. Iran could have helped the situation in Iraq had Bush not had his head firmly inserted during 2003 when they came calling. Now they're cocky, flush with oil and gas dollars, and perhaps this noise about them enriching uranium is just a cover for bombs already transfered from Pakistan ... they're a strategic problem for us and sometimes a good bombing is just the thing - think Israel taking Iraq's reactor out in 1981 and you'll have some idea of what I am thinking.

         Foreign policy should be left to hard headed realists, not ideologues like those neocon pansies.

        "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise" - U.S. Constitution author and fourth President James Madison

        by Iowa Boy on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 08:08:30 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  "we" have a problem (4+ / 0-)

          they're a strategic problem for us and sometimes a good bombing is just the thing - think Israel taking Iraq's reactor out in 1981 and you'll have some idea of what I am thinking.

          Good bombing? Ok, i think there is no reason for us to continue, keep on  lovin' the bomb.

          Foreign policy should be left to hard headed realists, not ideologues like those neocon pansies.

          Like Henry Kissinger? Say hello to another "good bombing"

          "I have a dream" King Jr.

          "I have a book deal" Perves Musharraf

          by allmost liberal european on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 08:14:38 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Disagree. (5+ / 0-)

          So completely and in so many ways that it's not even possible to get into it.

          Just recognize that statistically, you are in the minority, in America no less.

        •  There's not much realism in this suggestion. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Hornito, cotterperson, MO Blue

          (1) Whatever bomb-making capabilities there are are distributed and not all known. (2) If we were to bomb Iran it would turn the situation in Iraq into even more of a mess than it is now. (3) It would be yet another instance of us violating just about every precept of international law thereby weakening an already endangered bulwark against unneeded and unwanted wars.

          And then of course there are the moral arguments against killing people who have not attacked or threatened you . . .

  •  Here are two other reports you might want to read (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cotterperson, Dinclusin
    •  This is what really burns my ass (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mattes, Lepanto, greenearth, Snarcalita

      From your first article:

      Ahmadinejad recently held an international conference of holocaust deniers. And Israelis are now reminded daily that the Iranian president is a new Hitler who has to be terminated "with maximum prejudice" before a Persian nuclear weapon terminates Israel.

      Ahmadinejad did not hold a "Holocaust Denial Conference."  He held a conference to determine the validity of the Holocaust, inviting deniers AND non-deniers (the latter were actually CRITICIZED in their own countries for showing up to make their case).  Which is perfectly understandable, considering:

      a. Europeans have done nothing but lie to and colonize people of the mideast and take their resources for the past 200 years.

      b. It's AGAINST THE LAW to dispute the Holocaust in many European countries.  "Enforced truth," anyone?  To mideasterners, this has to look highly suspicious (and no, Virginia, the whole world does not revolve around the history of Europe).

      c. Ahmadinejad is kind of an uneducated peasant type.

      As far as I can tell, he just wants to get to the bottom of the issue.  The more I hear of this "Holocaust Denial" stuff, the more it seems to me to be a means of drumming up further hatred and fear of Iran, perhaps specifically to manufacture consent for this bombing thing.  Let the guy have his *@!(#^* conference.

      •  small correction (0+ / 0-)

        Europeans have done nothing but lie to and colonize people of the mideast and take their resources for the past 200 years.

        All of us? When did i do that? You should name the countries, there are only so many European countries that have done that in the middle east.

        "I have a dream" King Jr.

        "I have a book deal" Perves Musharraf

        by allmost liberal european on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 09:11:45 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Large correction (0+ / 0-)

        You wrote:

        The more I hear of this "Holocaust Denial" stuff, the more it seems to me to be a means of drumming up further hatred and fear of Iran, perhaps specifically to manufacture consent for this bombing thing.  Let the guy have his *@!(#^* conference.

        How about Iran called the conference as a means of drumming up further hatred of Israel?

        How about Iran held a "Holocaust" cartoon contest as a means of drumming up anti-Semitism (did you see those cartoons?)

        How about: You're an idiot.

        eom

        •  Right back atcha, Chuckles (0+ / 0-)

          If they end up denying the Holocaust, I'll concede;  if not I want that goddamn apology.  In the meantime, there seems to be a total blackout of information on the subject, and all I've heard for the last six months is misconstructions of everything that comes out of Ahmadinejad's mouth.  But what I actually see happening is, he challenges Bush to debate and all Persians giggle in unison.

          Iran's sole Jewish MP views the conference as "bad publicity" for his country.  The BBC's analysis is thus:

          Iran knows this conference is going to cause outrage abroad but it says it wants to test the limits of the West's commitment to freedom of speech, says the BBC's correspondent in Tehran, Frances Harrison.

          Iran is drawing a parallel with the Danish cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad, which provoked outrage in the Islamic world but were defended by Western liberals, she says.

          Sounds as right as rain to me.  As for "hatred of Israel," I have a feeling that those loony Persians might still be so uppity as to demand an answer to how one holocaust justifies another.

          Prosperity ripened the principle of decay; the causes of destruction multiplied with the extent of conquest... Gibbon

          by Dinclusin on Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 04:37:39 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Sounds wrong as yellow snow... (0+ / 0-)

            What part of "the holocaust was a myth" do you not understand.

            I don't want to debate you.

            You're an apologist for bigotry.

            That's as bad or worse than being a bigot.

            And twice as ignorant.

            End of discussion.

  •  If Edwards is rattling sabers (4+ / 0-)

    and Hillary's listening to the NY big money people, then what are we saying?  We stop one asshole and get another Democratic one?  

    Diebold! Democracy's premiere supplier of coffin nails since 2002

    by moon in the house of moe on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 08:03:43 PM PST

  •  Wow, that's paranoid shit (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eyes Wide Open

    the de Borchgrave article, that is.  I mean, Jews have a right to be paranoid, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if they were in deadly earnest about getting this done.  After all, they took out Iraq's nuclear facilities themselves.  

  •  Pelican (9+ / 0-)

    This diary has provoked commentary that I have  appreciated hearing. I have even more respect for Clark than before.

  •  Then Clark is Saber Rattling Too (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MeanBoneII, BWasikIUgrad, megisi

    Edwards writes on military strikes against Iran

    "I would never take any option off the table."

    And Clark says:

    "I'm not saying the military option is off the table."

    And you want to claim some huge distinction.  Be serious.

    •  Clark has also said (11+ / 0-)

      That coexisting with Iran without attacking it if they do get nukes is another option that should not be taken off the table. That's the difference.  And he has taken dozens of opportunities to argue for why diplomacy with Iran is possible and necessary.  There are Democrats who are afraid to sound "soft on Iran", Clark isn't.  Same thing happened in the lead up to the IWR vote on Iraq, too many Democrats were afraid of sounding "soft on Iraq".

      •  Oh really? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MeanBoneII

        Where does Edwards say we shouldn't coexist with Iran if they negotate an end to their nuclear weapons program?

        Again, there's no difference.

        And without getting off topic, Clark is far from perfect on the IWR.

        •  And what, exactly, do you mean (0+ / 0-)

          by this unwarranted slur?

          "Clark is far from perfect on the IWR."

        •  You missed my point (13+ / 0-)

          I have not heard another U.S. politician literally say that the United States should be prepared to consider the option of not using our military to stop Iran from getting nukes.  Clark has said exactly that.  I have heard politicians say that the United States can not under any circumsatnces allow Iran to acquire nukes.  I am not sure if Edwards is one of those who has said that.  But Clark is tho only one I know who openly points out that we need to consider whether attacking Iran to stop them from getting nukes is really in our national interests.

          What I am used to hearing Democrats say is that Iran can't be allowed to get nukes.  None of them talk that out to the logical conclusion, what if the only way to stop Iran fron getting nukes is to attack them?  They duck that part.  Clark doesn't.  He says all options remain on the table and he NAMES the option of nuclear coexistance as one of them.

          •  Wow! (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MeanBoneII

            You're saying Clark says that "we'll try diplomacy and if that fails we'll just have to live with an Iran that has nuclear weapons"?

            Now, I'm positive he's not running.

            •  No. You have it wrong again (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              kathygo

              but his full comments are below on this Diary.  He talks about the decision making process leaders should go through before they decide on war. He understands that keeping all options open doesn't just mean remaining open to the use of force.  I wish our leaders understood that before invading Iraq, don't you?

            •  Please try not to distort the plain truth. (0+ / 0-)

              Clark, by his own word, is still open to all options on Iran.

              Edwards, however, seems to have already decided that he will go to war without even searching for any way to co-exist with an Iran in possession of nuclear weapons.  So, what if China (for example) sells Iran nuclear weapons?  Would you be happy to go to war with Iran then?  Or would you prefer to go to war with China right now to prevent them from selling nuclear weapons to Iran?

              And if Edwards is elected after re-affirming his intent to prevent Iran from aquiring nuclear weapons, what might China (for example) decide to do?

        •  In the Jerusalem Post article, Edwards says... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          joesig

          Iran cannot be allowed to get nuclear weapons.  That's pretty definite.

        •  For a change of pace (8+ / 0-)

          What if the question was not who did or did not support (or sponsor) the IWR that passed, and we move it forward in time a little and ask, who defended the decision to invade Iraq, and stood by that later?  Even after the occupation began, and even after it was discovered that Iraq had no WMD, John Edwards still said that it was the right thing to do, and even knowing there were no WMDs, had he been President, he would have gone into Iraq.  That was in late 2003.

          I don't think comparing Edwards and Clark on going into Iraq works to Edward's favor. Edwards apologized for his vote for the war.  He used those words when he apologized. Edwards got it right with his apology, that is your firmest ground to stand on in defending him.

          •  Oh come on, you know Clark said this (2+ / 2-)
            Recommended by:
            MeanBoneII, jhritz
            Hidden by:
            miriam, mariawells

            April 10, 2003, as Baghdad Falls:

            After a three-week campaign waged almost exclusively by U.S. and British troops, with no U.N. involvement, an article by Clark appeared in The Times of London calling it "a great victory."

            Clark wrote :

            Can anything be more moving than the joyous throngs swarming the streets of Baghdad? Memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the defeat of Milosevic in Belgrade flood back. Statues and images of Saddam are smashed and defiled.

            Liberation is at hand. Liberation -the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions. Already the scent of victory is in the air.

            . . . As for the political leaders themselves, President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt.

            The article contained no hint that Clark opposed the "great victory" and no suggestion that he would have preferred U.N. diplomats handle the job instead. He did write a few days earlier that for an occupation of Iraq to succeed "we must gather legitimacy from institutions such as the United Nations and NATO." That article appeared in the Washington Times on March 23. Clark has posted that article on his campaign website, but not the gushing Times of London article.

            www.factcheck.org/article107.html

            And I believe, currently, Clark is basically for stay the course and against withdrawal.  Edwards is for the immediate withdrawal of 40,000 troops.

            •  You should quote the entire article (3+ / 0-)

              rather than cherry-pick.  Drudge did the same thing in 03.

              Here is the whole point of the article:

              Is this victory? Certainly the soldiers and generals can claim success. And surely, for the Iraqis there is a new-found sense of freedom. But remember, this was all about weapons of mass destruction. They haven’t yet been found. It was to continue the struggle against terror, bring democracy to Iraq, and create change, positive change, in the Middle East. And none of that is begun, much less completed.

            •  Clark is NOT for staying the course. (4+ / 0-)

              No, Wesley Clark is NOT for staying the course.  He has been relentlessly criticizing the "stay the course" strategy for two years now.

              What Clark supports is a viable EXIT STRATEGY.  A shot at diplomacy, which the Bush administration has still not seriously tried.  Hey, the U.S. destroyed the entire country's infrastructure.  Thanks to the American president, life in Baghdad is hell on earth right now.  Don't you think a round of competent diplomacy is worth a try before suddenly pulling all the troops, and letting every Iraqi who cooperated with the Americans and the new Iraqi government get slaughtered?

              Wesley Clark can find broker a peace in Iraq.  He did it before (Bosnia) and he can do it again.

              •  Negotiate with Syria and Iran (0+ / 0-)

                Sorry, that's a pathetic idea.  Why would either of them, both under threat of a Bush invasion or bombing want to help us out of this mess and free up our troops?

                Sorry, that's a non-starter.

                •  Why is Diplomacy a Pathetic Idea? (6+ / 0-)

                  Don't you think Syria and Iran have an interest in avoiding escalation, philgoblue?  They know perfectly well they can't defeat the U.S. militarily if it comes to a direct confrontation.  Syria is certain to respond positively to diplomacy - they have even been asking for it directly.  With Iran, it's slightly less certain, but still very likely.

                  Don't forget the U.S. is still the dominant power, and still holds a lot of the cards.

                  Besides, diplomacy worked with North Korea during the Clinton administration.  It was only after Bush declared them part of the axis of evil that they kicked out the IAEA and started up their reactors again.

                  •  Least we forget: (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    pradeep

                    Iran's leader sends letter to Americans

                     november 29, 2006 -

                    Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has written a letter to the American people, which will be released in New York, a state newspaper reported.

                    The newspaper gave no details of the letter, but it would appear to be an attempt by the firebrand president to reach out to Americans over the head of their government.
                    snip
                    Iranians in the street were disappointed by the cold response to the May letter because, while it did not make clear proposals, it was the first official communication between the two countries' presidents since the Islamic Revolution of 1979.

                    snip
                    "Many American people asked me to talk to them in order to explain the views of the Iranian people," Ahmadinejad told reporters, referring to his visit to New York to attend the UN general assembly session in September.

                    snip
                    Twice this year, Iran has proposed talks with the United States over Iraq, but Ahmadinejad has said that for such negotiations to take place, Washington must change its behaviour.

                    On Sunday, he said Iran was ready to help the United States get out of the "Iraqi quagmire if the US changes its bullying policy toward Iran".

                    http://www.theage.com.au/...

                    Dear Mr. Congress Person, kiss my ass or I will use the Line Item Veto to hurt you.

                    by mattes on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 10:43:55 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Your ignorance is showing (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Tom Rinaldo, witchamakallit

                  Not that I'm surprised.  Folks with a deep understanding of international relations generally don't support Edwards.

                  Bottom line:  You can always talk to anybody.

                  We talked to Milosevic before and all thru the bombing campaign.  If we hadn't, it probably wouldn't have worked.

                  We talked to the Soviet Union all thru the Cold War.

                  We started talking to the Chinese in the 1960s (long before Nixon went over, btw).  We talked to India when she was a Soviet ally, and now we're pretty good friends.

                  Who knows.  If we had talked directly to North Korea and North Vietnam, maybe a lot of people would be alive today who aren't.

                  Talking to an enemy (or potential enemy) gives you one of two things.

                  1. You get at least some of what you want, possibly avoiding the horror of war; or
                  1. You don't get what you want, but you get legitimacy in the world community for having tried BEFORE you have to go to war.

                  Besides, it's the right MORAL thing to do.  This country used to stand for morality, even if we didn't always live up to our standard.  Bush has changed that, but he couldn't have if WE (all of us, but also our elected representatives) hadn't let him.

        •  Considering the countless number of times (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Hornito, Shockwave, Sopiane, Dormaphaea, jen

          philoblue, that you have been given documented material on Clark's testimony before the war, and that you are still deliberately advancing this scurrilous falsehood, I shall not hesitate to troll rate if you do it again.

          To God: Please stop talking to George Bush. Too much is being lost in translation.

          by miriam on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 09:40:49 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  seen it, read it, don't find it as unambiguous as (0+ / 0-)

            you do.

            PS: troll-rating abuse is a TR offense.

            •  Posting comments (7+ / 0-)

              you know to be utterly false is a legitimate reason to troll rate them.   Your agenda is Edwards; whether or not you are being paid to advance that agenda is one thing.  Deliberately posting lies is another.  If you again state, with deliberate malice and mendacity, that Clark was supportive of this war, expect to be troll rated.

              To God: Please stop talking to George Bush. Too much is being lost in translation.

              by miriam on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 11:03:21 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  If the diarist did not take an unnecessary... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                philgoblue

                stab at Edwards, philgoblue would probably never had been here.

                As for Clark's war position, I have no definive answer.  But it does appear he was all over the place.

                For example:

                Wesley Clark: The New Anti-War Candidate?
                9/16/03; FAIR

                http://www.fair.org/...

                Hearing Clark talking to CNN's Paula Zahn (7/16/03), it would be understandable to think he was an opponent of the war. "From the beginning, I have had my doubts about this mission, Paula," he said. "And I have shared them previously on CNN." But a review of his statements before, during and after the war reveals that Clark has taken a range of positions-- from expressing doubts about diplomatic and military strategies early on, to celebrating the U.S. "victory" in a column declaring that George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair "should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt" (London Times, 4/10/03).

                Months before the invasion, Clark's opinion piece in Time magazine (10/14/02) was aptly headlined "Let's Wait to Attack," a counter-argument to another piece headlined "No, Let's Not Waste Any Time." Before the war, Clark was concerned that the U.S. had an insufficient number of troops, a faulty battle strategy and a lack of international support.

                As time wore on, Clark's reservations seemed to give way. Clark explained on CNN (1/21/03) that if he had been in charge, "I probably wouldn't have made the moves that got us to this point. But just assuming that we're here at this point, then I think that the president is going to have to move ahead, despite the fact that the allies have reservations."  As he later elaborated (CNN, 2/5/03): "The credibility of the United States is on the line, and Saddam Hussein has these weapons and so, you know, we're going to go ahead and do this and the rest of the world's got to get with us.... The U.N. has got to come in and belly up to the bar on this. But the president of the United States has put his credibility on the line, too. And so this is the time that these nations around the world, and the United Nations, are going to have to look at this evidence and decide who they line up with."

                On the question of Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction, Clark seemed remarkably confident of their existence. Clark told CNN's Miles O'Brien that Saddam Hussein "does have weapons of mass destruction." When O'Brien asked, "And you could say that categorically?" Clark was resolute: "Absolutely" (1/18/03). When CNN's Zahn (4/2/03) asked if he had any doubts about finding the weapons, Clark responded: "I think they will be found. There's so much intelligence on this."

                And:

                Clark Says He Would Have Voted for War
                by Adam Nagourney; NY Times 9-19-03

                http://www.commondreams.org/...

                General Clark said that he would have advised members of Congress to support the authorization of war but that he thought it should have had a provision requiring President Bush to return to Congress before actually invading. Democrats sought that provision without success.

                "At the time, I probably would have voted for it, but I think that's too simple a question," General Clark said.

                A moment later, he said: "I don't know if I would have or not. I've said it both ways because when you get into this, what happens is you have to put yourself in a position — on balance, I probably would have voted for it."

                Moving to fill in the blanks of his candidacy a day after he announced for president, General Clark also said that he had been a Republican who had turned Democratic after listening to the early campaign appeals of a fellow Arkansan, Bill Clinton.

                Indeed, after caustically comparing the actions of the Bush administration to what he described as the abuses of Richard M. Nixon, he said that he voted for Mr. Nixon in 1972. He also said he had voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984.

                The general's remarks in a free-rolling 90-minute airborne interview suggested the extent of the adjustment he faces in becoming a presidential candidate.

                "Mary, help!" he called to his press secretary, Mary Jacoby, at the front of the plane, as he faced questions about Iraq. "Come back and listen to this."

                At one point, Ms. Jacoby interrupted the interview, which included four reporters who were traveling on the general's jet, to make certain that General Clark's views on the original Iraq resolution were clear.

                "I want to clarify — we're moving quickly here," Ms. Jacoby said. "You said you would have voted for the resolution as leverage for a U.N.-based solution."

                "Right," General Clark responded. "Exactly."

                General Clark said he saw his position on the war as closer to that of members of Congress who supported the resolution — Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri and Senators Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, John Kerry of Massachusetts and John Edwards of North Carolina — than that of Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor who has been the leading antiwar candidate in the race.

                So please quit claiming that philgoblue statement's are utterly false and deserving of a troll rate.

                Better to discuss these issues rationally because a fair reading seems that either point is arguable.

                •  OK, well you don't know what you're talking about (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  jen

                  We've been through these discussions on Kos over and over and over again.  I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're just ignorant and not trolling.

                  Go do a keyword search on Clark and Iraq and learn something.

                  In case you're too lazy to do that:

                  Wes Clark was a COMMENTATOR, he's a retired GENERAL, it has been for many, many years his job to analyze the current situation and comment upon it.  Wes Clark was ALWAYS against invading Iraq.  His testimony before Congress in 2002 says it all.  He testified AGAINST invading, was ridiculed by Richard Perle for doing it, and was quoted by Paul Wellstone and Ted Kennedy as the reason they voted against the IWR.

                  There was another IWR that included the Levin amendment that would have required Bush to return to Congress for approval before going to war.  Wes Clark supported that.

                  •  Thank you for putting it so kindly... (0+ / 0-)

                    and intelligently.  It's nice to know someone who is so opinionated about things that I need not have one.

                    I guess the only way to not to be ignorant is to nod my head in agreement each time you insult me.

                    •  Yeah... (0+ / 0-)

                      For once, you're right.

                      Those of us who know him, have met him countless times, have talked to him about these things, have read ALL of his pieces and transcripts of appearances, don't just have "opinions."  We have FACTS.  You are twisting bits and pieces of what he has said to fit what you want to believe.  Go ahead.  Think what you want.  It's obvious that you don't have an open mind.  Just stop pissing on people you don't know shit about.  And it's 100% clear to anyone objective that you don't know SHIT about Wes Clark.

                      Maybe Edwards supporters run around saying things about Edwards without really knowing, but Clark supporters KNOW the man.  He talks to us.  He's met us.  He calls us by name.  So, yes, I can with confidence tell you that you don't know shit about the man.  It's not an opinion.  It's a fact.

                      •  Yes, every Clark supporter knows the man... (0+ / 0-)

                        He's talked to all of you.  He's met all of you.  Those are overgeneralizations if I've ever heard one.

                        Get real.  And stop with the insults.  You don't know me, yet you have this obsession to judge me.  That is a poor quality to possess.  Must I introduce you to Dale Carnegie?

                        Perhaps it might be better if you concede that NO ONE has a monopoly on the truth in matters like this, including yourself.

                        Frankly, I tend to discount those who claim superior knowledge.

                        •  OK (0+ / 0-)

                          I've met Clark over a dozen times.  kathygo has met him many more times than me.  DonnaZ's met him several times.  pelican has met him several times.  westcott has met him numerous times.  Sybil Liberty's only met him once, but she's blogged with him many times.  I could go on and on and on.  All these people follow him closely.

                          So YES we do have superior knowledge to you.  We know what Wes meant because we asked him.  All you're doing is taking quotes out of context.

                •  First person who quotes Nagourney on anything (0+ / 0-)

                  First person who quotes Nagourney on anything loses.

                  Or didn't you know?

                •  Follow-up (0+ / 0-)

                  A dissection of Nagourney's hit piece, in detail and by the numbers:

                  http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.c...

                  •  Thanks for this info... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    kathygo

                    much better than your friend's tirades.  She should learn from your example.

                    Though the article parses a lot in my view, at least it provides some explanations to allow for analysis.

                    I just remain confused why Clark did not specify the Levin Amendment as compared to the Resolution itself.  The most clear interpretation, it seems to me, is that he referred to the latter.  He certainly could have been more clear.

                    Even with the Levin Amendment, I suspect Bush would have acted exactly the same.  In the end, all this is really academic and there is no question in my mind who is responsible.

                    One last thing, I am interested in what you think about the claim of Hossam Shaltout that Saddam accepted Bush's ultimatum prior to the invasion.  I did a diary on it, though it vanished rather quickly on New Year's Eve.

                    http://www.dailykos.com/...

                    Have a good one.

                    •  Yes, perhaps he could have been more clear (0+ / 0-)

                      but he had 3 srtikes against him.

                      1. He was used to talking to reporters who wanted answers, not just soundbytes
                      1. There were several potential amendments floating around that were either as restrictive as the Levin amendment or more so.  Did he know what they were ultimately 'named' in Congress?  Probably not.
                      1. Keep in mind that Nagourney was in the Judith MIller circle at the NY Times, which was (at the time) shilling for the Bush admin in the run-up to war.  As bad as Nagourney is now, he was 5 times worse then.

                      I've always been skeptical that what Nagourney reported what actually was discussed.  Since I have no proof, I'll have to leave that as a private conviction.

                      To your other point -- there's not much I'd put past George Bush.

            •  You do Edwards no favors (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Sopiane

              You do Edwards no favors by cherry-picking quotes from Clark.  If supporters blacken the truth to advance their candidates, it sullies the candidate, IMO.

              •  Cherry picking is not reserved... (0+ / 0-)

                to just Bush and Cheney, and does not exclude Clark supporters either.

                Why did the diarist have to go after Edwards?  Is this not also cherry picking to cast him in a bad light?

                •  Then you should have pointed THAT out (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Sopiane

                  rather than attacking Wes with cherry picking.  Since when do two wrongs make a right?

                  •  I don't attack anyone. (0+ / 0-)

                    Unfortunately, you do so, it seems with frequency.

                    I've been here as long as anyone and never troll rated a person or even threatened so.  I'm afraid you cannot say the same.

                    I know that these are discussions and open questions.  I look at a person's words and come to a conclusion about the state of things.  I was not born yesterday.  Clark may have testified to Congress and ALSO said the other things he is credited with saying and writing.  It would not be the first time a public figure has said contradictory things.  

                    Clark was A CANDIDATE, NOT A COMMENTATOR, when he said this about the IWR on 9-19-03:  

                    "I don't know if I would have or not. I've said it both ways because when you get into this, what happens is you have to put yourself in a position — on balance, I probably would have voted for it."

                    Luckily, he did not have to vote, just pontificate.  However, when you deny that Clark was all over the place with his comments, then I think you are just plain wrong.  The difference is that I do not really care about it, or try to hang anything around his head.

                    I understand that there are many issues out there, and Iraq belongs solely to Bush.  I am secure enough in my beliefs that I need not attack anything or anyone that disagrees with me.  I have better things to do than waste my time playing these stupid games like many do here.    

                    I actually like Clark.  That's what makes your comment absurd.  I did not attack him, but tried to point out that people at DailyKos, including Clark supporters like yourself, are not immune from cherry picking.  

                    Thank you for supporting my beliefs and mischaracterizing me with your comment(s).

                    •  Yes... (0+ / 0-)

                      You most certainly have.  Saying Wes was all over the place is an attack and is wrong.  We've been through this a million fucking times.  You are lying and you are trolling.  End of story.  Go do some research, asshole.

                      •  No... (0+ / 0-)

                        it is just saying he is all over the place.  That is what I gleaned from the articles I read.  You may not like it, or truly want to discuss it, but that is not an attack.

                        You are lying and you are trolling.  End of story.  Go do some research, asshole.

                        In case you need clarification, that is an attack.

                        Carnegie's book is on sale at Amazon for $7.99.  Perhaps you should get a copy.

                        Have a nice day!

                        •  Perhaps you should (0+ / 0-)

                          You are quoting articles out of context that have been disputed on Kos hundreds of times.  That is an attack.  That is trolling.  You know it just as well as anyone.  I suggest you take another look at that book yourself.  Particularly since the first comment I made to you on this thread merely asked that you defend your guy instead of attacking mine.  But, you didn't do that.  You attacked me.  Nice job.  Dale Carnegie would be proud.

                    •  P.S. (0+ / 0-)

                      He was talking about LEVIN's amendment!!!  How many fucking times do we have to tell you that?  How many times do we have to fucking explain it to you before you get it.  I am SICK and TIRED of this.  YOUR GUY VOTED FOR IT.  MY GUY TESTIFIED AGAINST IT.  Get a clue.  Go find someone else to attack.

                      If you want to defend your guy, feel free.  But the fucking total bullshit that has been posted by you and philgoblue on this diary has been oft refuted to the point that bringing it up again IS TROLLING.

                      •  Do you get paid by the swear word? (0+ / 0-)

                        Vote and testify are not the same to me.  Not that it matters.

                        As I said to someone else, Bush would have done what he wanted no matter what resolution or amendment.  He has already shown a predisposition to ignore the law.  That is the crux of it to me.

                        •  That's a fine argument (0+ / 0-)

                          Go with it...the part about Bush.  

                          But Clark didn't have a vote--he testified -- what he could do -- and he influenced people to vote against it -- more than one.  But you've stated Wes was all over the map and Wes didn't have to show it with a vote and these things are smears.  So, stop it.  If you feel your guy has been smeared, you should react to the smear and disprove it rather than engaging in smearing yourself.  I think that's the way I started this conversation... and you attacked.  

                          •  For the record... (0+ / 0-)

                            it was the FAIR article that said he was all over the place.

                            And what about the comment he made on the plane on 9-19-03, as reported in the NY Times?  To me it does not seem like he is parsing, but simply saying he probably would have voted for the IWR.  I can live with that.  Can't you?

                            I will not even get into the vote vs. testimony thing, except that I do not equate one with the other.

                            I have always said that Bush's actions supersede what any Democrat did.  So the whole argument is a red herring.

                            Where you and I got off track was because of your insults.  That is something I will not tolerate, even though I will not stoop to that level.

                •  What else has Edwards said (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  witchamakallit

                  that hasn't been quoted?  If he advocates for diplomacy with Iran, I'd be delighted to see both his quotes and his plan.

      •  Got a link to where Clark said Iran could... (0+ / 0-)

        have nuclear weapons?

        •  He was talking about the full range of options (7+ / 0-)

          "Panelist #3: What's your opinion? The President of Iran sent an eighteen-page letter to President Bush. I've not seen a full transcript of that, and I don't think-

          GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Neither have I.

          Panelist #3: -probably we ever will. Right. What would be your idea of, of a correct response to that letter. Do you see that as, as a good opening?

          GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Everything in diplomacy is intended to advance the interest of one party at the expense of another. I mean, diplomacy is, it's another form of struggle. This was a measured strategy on the part of Ahmadinejad. Ahmadinejad's been no friend. On the other hand, my experience is need to talk to people, especially before you bomb them, you should talk to them. And so, I've been pressing the United States to have- open a dialog with Iran for some time. I'm not sure if the dialog will talk them out of going for a nuclear option, but I think the dialog is the right place to start. I think it's still possible to start with a dialog to propose some regional security measures that could raise the sense of security of nations and people throughout the region that might be productive. And you might be able, you might be able to avoid what seems to be an almost certain showdown coming with Iran.

          I've said the military option has to remain on the table, but in truth the United States government should be planning for three options. It should be planning for first, how to dissuade Iran from getting, from wanting to have a nuclear weapon. That's the first option. Second option is how to live with an Iran if they get a nuclear weapon. And I'm not saying you could ever solve that option, but you should be looking at it. I'm not saying that it's an acceptable option, but you should be asking yourself, 'What would it take for us to be able to accept an Iranian nuclear weapon?' What would it take? A change of government? A disarmament? An international presence? What would it take? We should be asking that question, because it's only when you've asked that question that you can then go to the third line of analysis, which said, well, what if you can't dissuade them, and you can't live with it? Then what are your military options? There are clearly two set's of military options. One set is a very narrow option that goes after the nuclear production facilities themselves, and another is a much broader military option that says, not only are we going to take out your nukes, but we're going to make sure that you have no means to retaliate against us after, after you do so. So, we're taking action against Iranian interests throughout the Gulf. We're going to go after Iranian interests in Lebanon or wherever you might be, and that includes, you know, Hezbollah worldwide. We're going to arrest you wherever you are. It's, it's a huge, big option, and I don't know how feasible it is, and I don't know how you get out of it once you launch into it. But again, these three lines of analysis, they're the responsibilities of the government, and if we're not doing that, then shame on us. We should be. If they were serious, they'd be talking to the Iranians as a first step. And they're not."

          The above was taken from the Clark Podcast; "Common Voices in Iowa"
          http://securingamerica.com/...

      •  ditto (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sopiane, witchamakallit

        what alot of people forget is the number of times that Clark has put forward the idea that you TALK to other countries, even if they hate us, especielly if they hate us.

        •  And Iran has been trying to talk to us (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Hornito, Shockwave, thirtyplus

          for years.
          But:

          AIPAC's stated purpose is to lobby the Congress of the United States on issues and legislation "to ensure that the U.S.-Israel relationship is strong so that both countries can work together" to meet the challenges of "stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, fighting terrorism and achieving peace".[1] It regularly meets with members of Congress and holds events where it can share its views. It also provides analysis of the voting records of U.S. federal representatives and senators with regard to how they voted on legislation related to Israel. AIPAC has been effective in gaining support for Israel among members of Congress and White House administrations.

          The New York Times described AIPAC on July 6, 1987 as "a major force in shaping United States policy in the Middle East." The article also stated that: "The organization has gained power to influence a presidential candidate's choice of staff, to block practically any arms sale to an Arab country, and to serve as a catalyst for intimate military relations between The Pentagon and the Israeli army. Its leading officials are consulted by State Department and White House policy makers, by senators and generals." [1]
          snip
          President George W. Bush, addressing AIPAC members in Washington on May 18, 2004, stated: "AIPAC is doing important work. In Washington and beyond, AIPAC is calling attention to the great security challenges of our time. You've always understood and warned against the evil ambition of terrorism and their networks. In a dangerous new century, your work is more vital than ever." [citation needed]

          AIPAC has attracted significant political leaders to address their conferences. Among them are former President Bill Clinton, current President George W. Bush, Senators John McCain, Evan Bayh, Susan Collins and Joe Biden, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer, House Majority Leader John Boehner, House Republican Whip Roy Blunt, former speakers of the House Dennis Hastert and Newt Gingrich. It has also included former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, current Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, and United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. [citation needed]
          More:
          http://en.wikipedia.org/...

          Dear Mr. Congress Person, kiss my ass or I will use the Line Item Veto to hurt you.

          by mattes on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 09:59:26 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Clark... (8+ / 0-)

      ...believes in diplomacy backed by the threat of force.

      And has said repeatedly......war should be a last last last resort.

      He was against going into Iraq.

      Doesn't sound like saber rattling to me.

      "This is not a time for a candidate who will offend no one; it is time for a candidate who takes clear stands and kicks ass."....Molly Ivins

      by pelican on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 08:27:33 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly, it's not saber rattling at all (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MeanBoneII

        It's hyperbole just like this silly diary.

        So, I could retitle it "John Edwards is steamed!!!!" since there isn't a dimes worth of difference between them.

        •  Well... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          KayCeSF

          ...you could.... if Edwards ever had been steamed about about the possible bombing of Iraq.

          Post the link if you have it

          All I've heard from him is that he won't take any shit from them. Doesn't sound like someone interested in diplomacy to me

          "This is not a time for a candidate who will offend no one; it is time for a candidate who takes clear stands and kicks ass."....Molly Ivins

          by pelican on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 08:44:28 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  The title... (0+ / 0-)

          Just for the record, the title was Huffington's, not pelicans.  And it was in reference to the very conversation where Wes was steamed, the press said, "You know we're writing this down," and he said, "Yes."  

      •  Neither does anything Edwards has said (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        citizen53, MeanBoneII, nasarius

        Yet you throw an ad hominem attack on Edwards at the end of your diary on Clark.  Why?

        "Why don't newscasters cry when they read about people who die? At least they could be decent enough to put just a tear in their eye" - Jack Johnson

        by bawbie on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 08:32:05 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  because Edwards is a candidate? (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          miriam, Hornito, ParaHammer, Sopiane, jen

          because he co-sponsored bush's IWR?...I wouldn't call it ad hominem to mention his name under those circumstances, furthermore, Senator Clinton was also mentioned. But bottomline, here's why either one of them might be worth a mention in this particular diary:

          "...This administration's preemptive doctrine is CAUSING North Korea and Iran to ACCELERATE their nuclear weapons development. Now there are some of us who aren't in Washington right now, but I'd like to ask all those who are...lets see some leadership in the United States Congress. Let's see you take apart that doctrine of preemption NOW. I don't think we can wait until November 2004 to change the administration on this threat. We're marching into another military campaign in the Middle East. We need to stop it." -- WKC (rebuttal, 2004 Dem primary debate)

          Part of the record...some of us just aren't going to be able to support a candidate who lacked the judgment not to support bush's criminal war agenda in the U.S. Congress no matter how remorseful 3 years after the fact.

          ...it's about integrity, stupid

          by Sybil Liberty on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 09:41:13 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The AUMF is not Bush's War (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MeanBoneII

            Really, listen to Kos and stop blaming Democrats for Bush's War.

          •  But isn't it so... (0+ / 0-)

            that because Clark did not have a vote it's impossible to truly gauge his judgment in this particular matter?

            I have seen quotes of his saying he probably would have voted just like Edwards, Gephardt, Lieberman, etc.

            Oh well.

            •  OK... now I am going to start troll rating you (0+ / 0-)

              Everybody fucking knows from Wes's 2002 testimony before congress how he felt about the Iraq War.  You're just repeating what YOU want to believe.

              •  Are you able to comment without an insult? (0+ / 0-)

                Your threats are indicative, at least to me, of an underlying fear to deal with an issue on its face.

                I am losing my respect, quite honestly, because of your rudeness and insistence to characterize people who may not agree with you.  This is a far cry from what this community should be like.

                The fact is that Clark did not vote on the issue.  If I must be troll rated for making that comment, then so be it.

                But that would be more a reflection on you than me.

                •  If you take a look (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Sopiane

                  I always address people with REAL questions about Wes Clark respectfully, honestly, and truthfully.  You could even look at this thread and see where I said I thought he could have said what he said better.

                  The FACT is that you are repeating memes that have been disproved hundreds of times on Kos.  That is trolling and a reflection on you.

                  I have no fear of Wes Clark's stance on Iraq.  I am just sick to death of people repeating bits and pieces of what he said out of context and my being forced to spend hours out of my life disproving it, YET AGAIN, because of trolls like you, so that newcomers won't be hookwinked.

                  If you have a real concern about Wes, then, by all means, let's discuss it.  Take a look around; I often discuss real concerns about Wes Clark.  The man is not perfect.  In fact, if you were to search "not perfect" on this very thread, you'd find somewhere else where I said it.

                  It seems to me that YOU just don't like being called out on your thinly disguised trolling behavior and so you attack me--the messenger who brought you the bad news.

                  And for the record.  NO, Wes Clark did not have a vote on the IWR.  But John Edwards did.  And HE VOTED FOR IT.  The blood of 3000 dead American soldiers is on his hands.  Wes Clark did not have a vote.  But where he did have a voice, testifying in 2002, to the House and Senate, he spoke out against it and Ted Kennedy and Paul Wellstone quoted his testimony (among other retired military) as the reason they went into the testimony thinking they would support the war and came out of the testimony against it.

                  •  Yes, Edwards should be tried for war crimes... (0+ / 0-)

                    The FACT is that I raised these articles written by others with quotes attributable to Clark and received in reply some bullshit insults about my character and threats that I am a troll.  Nowhere did I see any discussion.

                    Now you want to get off your high horse and claim you are open for discussion?  Spare me.

                    Clark may have testified one way, but did he not also make these other statements?

                    As I said, I could care less.  I know who caused the war and I do not need to point fingers.  Nor do I claim to have superior knowledge.  But tell me, how can one have a real discussion with someone who says that the blood of 3,000 is on Edwards's hands.  Sounds like a pretty closed mind to me.  

                    •  Yes... (0+ / 0-)

                      He did make those comments.  But he made them in an entire context that you didn't bother to quote.  And, if you've been around Kos at all, you should KNOW what the true context is.  KNOWING it and not POSTING it, is trolling.  So, actually, NO, I'm not open to discussing it.  It's been discussed ad nauseum here for 3 years.  Now, if you have real things you'd like to discuss about Wes, of course, I'm open.  And I've proven it time and time again.

                      •  Take a look at this posters 'comment' history (0+ / 0-)

                        This is not the first time its had this exact same discussion.

                        •  I may have the discussion... (0+ / 0-)

                          but I do it with courtesy and respect, quite unlike what I have received in return, insults, profanity, vitriol.

                          I have been at DKos a very long time and NEVER found the need to resort to such tactics in an exchange.

                          I am a Democrat and a liberal and I know who the enemy is.  Unfortunately, when I mentioned that the diary needlessly made an attack on Edwards, your fellow Clark supporter went off the handle.

                          Clark may have testified as he did.  But I have not heard anything of substance about his other statements that, on the face, are not wholly consistent with the testimony.  Even a "So What? would have been ok, but instead the insults came flying.  Ignorant, Asshole, troll, etc.  Frankly, it's sad and uncalled for no matter what.

                          •  Trolling (0+ / 0-)

                            Trolling is uncalled for, no matter what.  The first thing I said to you was a polite "defend your guy, don't attack mine."  You proceded to quote Wes out of context.  That is trolling and you know it.  The vitriol is warranted.  Just look at what you've done to this thread.  And, with all honesty, YOU made that happen, not me.  I'll occassionally fly off the handle if someone unjustly attacks Wes, but I don't usually do that.  You pressed all my buttons because you and philgoblue dredged out the same trolling behavior you always do.  It's not a difference of opinion.  You're repeated stuff that's been proven irrelevent, off the mark, or just plain out of context.  And you KNOW it.  So stop it.  

                          •  Once again... (0+ / 0-)

                            difference of opinion are just that.

                            Why do you imply that only you are capable of proving something.

                            Certainty like this scares me.

                            I did nothing to the thread except raise an issue.

                            What did you do?  Call names, like a child.

                            Take care.

                          •  So.. (0+ / 0-)

                            Your idea of posting an opinion is quoting half-stories or taking something out of context?  And there's no way to "prove" that you've done that.  Sure, have an opinion.  Just like 30% of Americans still have the opinion that George W. Bush was right to invade Iraq; they are most certainly entitled to their opinion and you cannot prove that they were wrong.  Simple difference of opinion.  

                          •  Just like... (0+ / 0-)

                            blood is on the hands of those who voted for the IWR even though it was Bush who lied and made the decision to invade.  You state it as fact the way I read it, but is it not just your opinion?

                            And why is that, what I perceive as an attack, any less of a trollish comment?  Just interested.

                            By the way, do you believe that Saddam accepted Bush's ultimatum?  I direct you to my recent diary and am interested to know your view.

                            http://www.dailykos.com/...

                          •  Name calling is a last resort of the frustrated (0+ / 0-)

                            So perhaps you might learn from your previous conversations that you will get the same explanations over and over and over.

                            Maria has tried to provide you examples and context and personal insight.  All of that has been ignored.

                            Trite example:  If the sky is blue with a single cloud, some (like Maria and I) will attempt to insist that the sky is blue and to present evidence to that effect.  Others (whose motives may be more or less obscure) will insist that the sky is white -- after all, the cloud is a piece of the sky, isn't it?

                            So, aggressive denials of evidence leads to more and stronger aggressive rebuttals.

                            One thing Clarkies are is tenacious.

                          •  With respect... (0+ / 0-)

                            she did nothing of the sort.

                            She lashed out precipitously and continually.  Tenacity os a good thing.  I like to think that I have that quality as well.

                            But the invective and profanity is all one sided here.  To me that is a sign of weakness in one's ability to communicate.

                            I appreciate the comment!

                        •  Thanks, Kathy (0+ / 0-)

                          I try to look at each comment individually, but sometimes people are just into repeating the same smears over and over.

                          You know I don't just defend Wes blindly.  I would never do that.  I don't think Wes would want that.  But I do get tired of people pulling out the same mis-quotes and having to waste my life shooting them down.  And, yes, I'm losing patience with it.  You'd think they could at least find something new.

                          •  Huh? (0+ / 0-)

                            I try to look at each comment individually, but sometimes people are just into repeating the same smears over and over.

                            I am trying not to laugh because it seems to me that you flew off the handle immediately.  

                            You know I don't just defend Wes blindly.  I would never do that.  I don't think Wes would want that.

                            Laughable as well.  You and I have never had this discussion before, yet you would not even address if these other statements were made.  I find you very absolute in your comments.  Some may describe that as blind.

                            By the way, would Wes approve of your insulting, profane replies?  I don't profess to know him, but suspects he would request civility out of his supporters.

                          •  Uh... (0+ / 0-)

                            That note was to kathy; SHE does know that I don't defend Wes blindly because she's personally seen me take him on as have all the Clarkies who post here and even some non-Clarkies.  

                            But, for the record, I think I made it pretty clear that I have no intention of addressing the comments you've made here that have been addressed a hundred other times on Kos.  That is why what you are doing is trolling--because it's been debunked over and over and over here.  I think I've explained that pretty clearly.  If you have NEW concerns about Wes, I'll be more than happy to address them.

                            If anybody else is interested in reading the truth about Wes Clark and Iraq, there are some interesting threads available on Kos from both myself and PhilC.  http://www.dailykos.com/... and http://www.dailykos.com/...

                          •  Appreciate the links... (0+ / 0-)

                            and the fact that you made it all the way through a comment without calling me a name.

                            However, raising topics for discussion is not trolling.  making threats in this regard and calling one a troll is just silly.

                          •  It is trolling (0+ / 0-)

                            when those topics have been covered time and time again.

                          •  I suggest that you review what trolling is... (0+ / 0-)

                            and you will find your personal attacks and threats to troll rate, based on opinions of others that you find diasgreeable, come much closer to the mark than anything I offered.

                    •  PS (0+ / 0-)

                      I never said Edwards should be tried for war crimes.  Acting like I did is trying to create an illusion of unreasonableness on my part where there is none.  Edwards voted for the war.  The blood is on his hands, just like it's on Kerry's and Clinton's.

            •  Have you ever bothered to read Clark's (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              witchamakallit

              testimony before both houses' Armed Services Committees in September 2002? six months before the invasion?

              If our duly-electeds had bothered to heed his advice we would not be in Iraq.

              Try to remember that the former NATO Commander was called by the committees to speak to those assembled congressional hearings. (Why do you suppose he was called? for lack of expertise? snark/)

              Hypothetically, had Clark been in Congress, he might have voted for the Levin amendment. He would never have voted for the 'blank-check IWR' that Edwards and Lieberman co-sponsored.

              By the time of the IWR didn't we all know that decisions on invading countries should never be placed in the hands of the decider-buffoon?

              So just stop with the speculation on what Clark might have done...we know he would never have signed bush's unlimited-presidential-war-powers-resolution.

              ...it's about integrity, stupid

              by Sybil Liberty on Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 06:49:43 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  These are all hypotheticals... (0+ / 0-)

                and by definition are speculative.

                None of the votes actually mattered, as Bush would have issued a signing statement or just done what he wanted anyway, as he has done.  Bush is the one that acted criminally in this regard.

                I appreciate what you are saying, and the way you say it.

                Not that I do not care about Iraq, but I know how we got there, notwithstanding how Democrats voted on the IWR.  To me the issue is a red herring.  Do you really think the Levin amendment would have caused a different outcome?

                In any event, only one resolution passed and Clark seemed to say, after the fact, that he peobably would have voted for it.  I did not put these words in his mouth.  Just because I raise this does not mean I am attacking him.  But he did not make a vote, so we will never have a definite answer to what he would have done.

                •  Oh please. It's highly unlikely (0+ / 0-)

                  that having advised against the invasion in his testimony, (part of the official congressional record - both houses), that he would have turned around and supported the blank-check-resolution in support of bu$h's ill-conceived war-agenda.

                  It could not be clearer.

                  And yes, you are correct. The outcome would have been the same, since there was no_congressional_oversight_whatsoever, from either side of the aisle. How does that justify voting in support of the IWR?

                  ...but you're wrong re: the hypothetical Q. Clark has stated that he would not have voted for the blank-check resolution. (The link will have to wait unless someone here can provide it...I have to be somewhere)

                  ...it's about integrity, stupid

                  by Sybil Liberty on Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 09:37:30 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

      •  Again, there is no difference (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MeanBoneII, Eiron

        between Edwards and Clark (unless Rinaldo is right and Clark is OK with a Iran joining the a-bomb club).

        Edward is "believes in diplomacy backed by the threat of force."

        Here's a summary of his Task Force on Russia:

        Iran: "A Russian policy that limits nuclear cooperation with Iran to nonsensitive technologies would justify dropping our historic objections to the Bushehr reactor."

        Shocking, Edwards is for negotiations that would insure that Iran's nuclear program is verifiably peaceful.

  •  Brig Gen Oded Tira's comments (7+ / 0-)

    President Bush lacks the political power to attack Iran. As an American strike in Iran is essential for our existence, we must help him pave the way by lobbying the Democratic Party (which is conducting itself foolishly) and US newspaper editors. We need to do this in order to turn the Iranian issue to a bipartisan one and unrelated to the Iraq failure.

    We must turn to Hillary Clinton and other potential presidential candidates in the Democratic Party so that they publicly support immediate action by Bush against Iran. We should also approach European countries so that they support American actions in Iran, so that Bush will not be isolated in the international arena again.

    We must clandestinely cooperate with Saudi Arabia so that it also persuades the US to strike Iran. For our part, we must prepare an independent military strike by coordinating flights in Iraqi airspace with the US. We should also coordinate with Azerbaijan the use of airbases in its territory and also enlist the support of the Azeri minority in Iran. In addition, we must immediately start preparing for an Iranian response to an attack.

    The Americans must act.

    http://www.ynetnews.com/...

  •  They haven't got the balls to stop Bush (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MA Liberal, KayCeSF, Eyes Wide Open

    They just agreed to rubber stamped the whitewash of 3000 innocent civilian's murders called the 911 Commission Report that was no investigation into that Pear Harbor creation the treasonous Neo-Cons needed AND NAMED to kick off their IRAQ IRAN SYRIA series of well planed in advance wars.  The Congress will not investigate or impeach the criminals because they lack the guts to act against the moneybags who own them. Gutless pricks! We will be at war with Iran in months and nothing will be done to the madmen running this government. These fools are going to turn the world against us and the country into economic disaster.

    If Clark has any sense he’ll know what to do and he’ll get a lot of support

    The young man who has not wept is a savage, and the old man who will not laugh is a fool. George Santayana

    by Bobjack23 on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 08:29:22 PM PST

  •  There Will Be No Bombing of Iran! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    adigal, ShaShaMae

    I don't give a goddam what Jews or Israelis or Clintons or whatever the hell Lieberman's suppose to be; I don't give a damn what these people want.

    There will be no bombing of Iran. If Democrats allowed that to happen in the near future, I can't imagine they'd have a government left to run much longer.

  •  How soon before someone (9+ / 0-)

    calls Clark anti-Semitic?

    Too late.  

  •  That is the biggest reason for my not liking John (6+ / 0-)

    I love Edwards on every subject but this.

    Spouting the AIPAC line simply does not do it for me.

    Sorry, but I think the Palestinians have a claim as well, to at least 20% or so of the land both sides have claimed as their own.

    Have we gotten so skewed by Israel that any serious candidate for the US presidency has to bend over for them?

    "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about the things that matter." Dr. ML King, from a jail cell in Birmingham, Alabama in 1963.

    by bewert on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 08:47:43 PM PST

    •  Well, if the bloggers on a left, or leaning left, (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rmx2630, witchamakallit

      blog get so skewed if someone says that Israel should stop killing its neighbors, how can we expect our presidential candidates to not bend over?

      •  Re: your comment on presidential candidates (0+ / 0-)

        That's what leadership is for.

        •  This wasn't leadership (0+ / 0-)

          This was a GAFFE.

          Clark talked in coded language about the money people in NY in the same sentence where he was talking about Jews -- not AIPAC -- Jews.

          Huffington tried to point it out to him.  He brushed her off.  She printed the story to show the world how badly he'd handled himself.

          What did he do wrong?

          He CONFLATED JEWS with STEREOTYPES.  He make a mistake.  If he wanted to name AIPAC, he should have named them.  He didn't.  He only named Jews.

          He's fueled old-fashioned anti-Semitism instead of a discussion about AIPAC.

          Here's an example (right off Huffington); look it this comment in response to the actual post:

             Let Israel attack Iran. Let Jewish mothers, instead of American mothers, mourn the loss of their sons for a while.
             Go Wes! I hope its contagious.

          I think any Jewish American mothers who have lost sons in wars might just have a problem with that.

          The responder was right, it is contagious.  

          Just read some of the posts on this diary.    

          Wes needs to take that back.  He needs to repudiate responses like the one above.  He needs people around him who can tell him the difference between criticism of an organization and conflation of an entire world religion.

          He needs to apologize for this.

          eom

          •  Clark said what he said (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            miriam, jen, RAZE

            and anyone who can't tell the difference between what Clark said and some anonymous poster on a blog writes needs to re-examine their motives.

            What he needs to do is what he has been doing for the last 3 years.... and what he did before the run-up to war in Iraq.

            Ring every alarm bell that can be rung.

            •  It is what Clark said that is the problem (0+ / 0-)

              It is amazing to me that you don't get that.

              He conflated JEWS with a stereotype right out of the PROTOCOLS.  

              In logic, conflation is the error of treating two distinct concepts as if they were one. The result of conflating concepts may give rise to fallacies of ambiguity, including the fallacy of four terms in a categorical syllogism.

                    1. All bats are animals.
                    2. Some wooden objects are bats.
                    3. Therefore, some wooden objects are animals.

              Clark has a RESPONSIBILITY not to use coded language or conflation.  

              All Americans of influence have that RESPONSIBILITY.  

              All MORAL people have that responsibility.

              Why don't you GET that?

              The problem is not what he said about Iran or Dr. Stranglove type plans he warns of.

              The problem is that his words were so POORLY chosen, that he gave AMMUNITION to every anti-Semite around (just read the comments) to think they can now CONFLATE as well.

              Clark needs to apologize.

              eom

              •  Thanks for shouting (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                rmx2630, thirtyplus

                I read the comments. Out of 8 comments (not counting duplicates and follow-ons) there are 8 sane responses and one who is at best insensitive and at worst, a concern troll or a crazy.

                (Sigh, every politican attracts crazies, I guess we shouldn't expect anything different with Wes. )

                What you don't seem to grasp is that he's pointing out that the Israeli papers are full of this drumbeat to war and that they are busy trying to recruit Democrats to go along with bombing Iraq via campaign contributions.

                It pretty much pisses me off too.   I didn't see it as anti-semetic ammunition, because what are they going to say?  "The Likud is deserting Bush?"

                •  I'm being as polite as I can (0+ / 0-)

                  in face of this stupidity.

                  Having been at effect of this exact type of conflation by someone you know intimately, who once referred to me as one of those "rich types from LA..." (were you at that meeting?), I know how hurtful coded language can be.

                  Although, since I'm Zoroastrian, I was surprised he pushed coded language on me.  But then, maybe he just assumed I was Jewish because I live in LA.

                  Clark may have had stupid people around him, but he is not a stupid man.

                  He should know better.

                  So should you.

                  eom

                  •  I'm not smart enough to speak in code (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    RAZE

                    I pretty much say what I mean.

                    •  So (0+ / 0-)

                      That means you don't approve of coded language or the hurt it causes.

                      Good for you.  I've always seen you as a straight shooter, Kathy (truly).

                      That is not true for everyone.

                      And that's unfortunate.

                      It needs to be true for Clark.  As a public figure, he has a responsibility toward all groups he hopes to represent.  He has to be careful not to feed  stereotypes.  

                      He knows this.  He knows about coded language.  The man spent years in the Army.  He spent years at Oxford.  He's been around Washington, NY and LA.  

                      He's lived in the south.

                      He knows the difference.

                      He got mad, he didn't watch his words.

                      He made a mistake.

                      As a result, he diluted his very important message about Iran.

                      Someone might want to point that out.

                      eom.

                      •  I think you're being paranoid (0+ / 0-)

                        Wes is Jewish fercripessake.  

                        I agree that the NY money comment was not the brightest thing he ever said because it did, as you said, dilute his ire about Iran and open up the possibility that he'd be portrayed as anti-semetic.  I wouldn't call it a gaffe, though.  He said what he meant, and what he thinks is true, and actually, is true.  But that doesn't mean he couldn't and shouldn't have said it better.

                        He's mad.  Iraq was a huge strategic blunder that he warned against.  Now we're going to do it AGAIN.  He keeps seeing how we can get out of this mess and Bush keeps digging deeper and deeper.  He's watching the country he defended for 34 years of his life--that he got shot for--go to hell in a hand basket.  He's mad.  And he's not perfect.  So he said something that he could have and should have said better.  Life goes on.

                        I don't think we need to drag up supposedly coded language about LA from 3 years ago.  And that's some code.  Aren't there Jewish people everywhere?  (Except where I grew up in the midwest--LOL!)  It must be some kind of fancy code to assume that rich people in LA are Jewish right wingers.  Geez, I thought the rich people in LA were left-wing pacifist movie stars.